Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Cathedrals

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what grants his Department is making to support the preservation of the major cathedrals.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): The cathedral repair grant scheme assists with the repair both of cathedrals and of comparable buildings of other denominations. English Heritage has provided £11·5 million over the three financial years to 1993–94, and I was pleased to announce that £4 million will be available for this work in each of the years 1994–95 and 1995–96.

Mr. Brandreth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the maintenance of our great cathedrals can no longer be left to the cathedrals themselves and the Church Commissioners? Chester cathedral is enormously grateful for the support of English Heritage, the European Community and local businesses such as North West Securities. Does my right hon. Friend plan to do more to explore, encourage and sustain partnerships of that kind for the further support of our great and ancient cathedrals?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is right to identify the need for help for the fabric of our cathedrals and about the notable effectiveness of a pluralist response. I am grateful to him for his comments about English Heritage's contribution, and I look forward to the kind of partnership that he described in a series of cases.

Mr. Enright: While welcoming the support for cathedrals, may I ask whether it applies only to ecclesia Anglicana, or do all other churches and similar buildings receive a grant?

Mr. Brooke: I shall reiterate my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). I said that the cathedral repair grant scheme assists with the repair both of cathedrals and of comparable buildings of other denominations.

Deregulation

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives his Department has taken to promote deregulation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): My Department is currently carrying out a detailed review of those regulations which impact upon businesses that regularly and significantly supply goods and services in areas for which my Department is responsible. Most of these regulations are not the direct responsibility of my Department but, where justified, my Department will be making strong representations to the relevant Department about unnecessary and burdensome regulations and over-zealous or unacceptably inconsistent standards of enforcement.

Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend on his return to the Dispatch Box and congratulate him on his commitment, about which I know, to dealing with absurd red tape. Will he tackle as a priority the extraordinary absurdities in fire regulations? Is he aware that they date back to the days when theatres were lighted by gas flames, when cinemas distributed films on highly combustible nitrate, and when there were no smoke alarms or fire ventilators? Such regulations place impossible burdens on places of entertainment. Therefore, will my hon. Friend tackle that problem and modernise all the regulations, bringing them up to date?

Mr. Sproat: I am glad that my hon. Friend asked that question, because she made two important points. First, with regulations on such matters as fire safety, it is extremely important to ensure that we keep them and that we have the right ones. Equally, it is clear that it is unlikely that fire safety regulations introduced for theatres lighted by gas will be as modern as they should be. Following her perspicacious question, I shall see whether that should be changed.

Mrs. Clwyd: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box, and have a question about maintaining a policy of deregulation of the press. Will he enlighten the House on the extent of the disagreement between his Department and the Prime Minister on that issue? Is it true that the policy unit at No. 10 was planning a meeting on that matter with Fleet street editors without consulting the Secretary of State? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State favours self-regulation, while the Prime Minister, facing a hostile press, wants to impose tough controls? Is there some disagreement?

Mr. Sproat: No, there is no disagreement. We shall make our views known in due course, as the hon. Lady well knows from the debate last Thursday.

Mr. Waterson: May I join those welcoming my hon. Friend back to the Dispatch Box after he was rudely interrupted? Does he agree that the last thing that restaurateurs and hoteliers in my constituency of Eastbourne need is more regulation, and that it is quite absurd that, for example, cheeses have to be kept in a separate room in a fridge, when one has only to cross the channel to see them kept as they should be, in the restaurant, without benefit of refrigeration?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There are many such examples. We may come to deal with them in more detail in a later question. I shall certainly look at the example that he gave and deal with it.

Regional Orchestras

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on regional orchestras; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sproat: The Arts Council and the BBC are responsible for formulating policy relating to regional orchestras. They are collaborating on a joint review of orchestral provision, and a report will be considered by their governing councils later this year. A period of public consultation is planned subsequently.

Mr. Jones: Bearing in mind the pressure on the Arts Council budget, what is the future for great northern orchestras, such as the Liverpool Philharmonic and Manchester Hallé? I declare my interest as a life member of the Liverpool Philharmonic and as a friend and subscriber.
Does the Minister accept that the Liverpool Philharmonic has considerable financial difficulities? Will he explain how he may help that great orchestra, as it has a great record of touring and artistic success, and has a charismatic maestro in the person of Libor Pesak? I think that he will agree that Liverpool is now making a new economic future. it is proud of its orchestra and to make the best of its prospects, Liverpool needs the Philharmonic to have the best possible financial backing. What can he do to help that great orchestra?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I share his view of the high qualities of the Liverpool Philharmonic and the Hallé. I can tell him—these are not glib words—that the Arts Council increased the grant to both orchestras by more than 6 per cent. last year, which was more than other main regional orchestras got. That was more than £1 million to each. We are both seized of the importance of the artistic quality to which he referred and, through the Arts Council, are doing something specific and considerable about it.

Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend concede that the Hallé is one of the finest orchestras in the world? It gives great pleasure in Manchester and the north-west—and, indeed, internationally: it is admired throughout the world. Can we assume from the assurances that my hon. Friend has given that he will ensure that our northern orchestras are properly funded?

Mr. Sproat: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. It is a great tribute to the Hallé orchestra that its standards have never been higher than they are today, even in the days of Sir John Barbirolli. We are determined to maintain those high standards, both for the people of Manchester and around the world, where the orchestra tours.

Film Industry

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has held with the British and international film industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: In February this year, I met the president of the Motion Picture Export Association of America, at his request, to discuss the state of the United Kingdom industry and United States interests here. I am now engaged in a round of 10 meetings with the different

sectors of the United Kingdom industry to discuss the state of the industry and possible measures to help it. I will announce my conclusions in due course.

Mr. Jessel: Many British films are brilliant—of outstanding quality—with British talent winning top awards for acting, photography, direction and production. Will my right hon. Friend see what can be done to retain as much British talent as possible in British-made films, and to bring together people who might finance more first-class films?

Mr. Brooke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the strength of the industry. The aim of the important talks in which we are engaged is to discover whether, by some means or other, we can restore critical mass to the industry, and build on that.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is no great secret about the matter? The industry is capable of not only attracting large sums to this country, but providing a good deal of employment. Its present parlous state is directly due to Her Majesty's Government's refusal to give it any assistance, either fiscally or in any other way. Will the right hon. Gentleman simply accept that it is his responsibility to do something quickly?

Mr. Brooke: I do not often address one of my constituents in so direct a manner, but that was not the most knowledgeable question that the hon. Lady has ever asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "She will not vote for you now."] The hon. Lady has frequently told me that she does not vote for me.
The Government provide £24 million in support of the industry, by a variety of means. In the talks in which we are engaged, we are analysing possible other ways in which help could be provided.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May another of my right hon. Friend's constituents—who does vote for him—remind him of the excellent work done by the Ealing film studios—

Mr. Cormack: Carry on Harry!

Mr. Greenway: —mostly in producing comedies? Is he aware that there are many more excellent films where those great films came from, and that they can be made if money goes into the industry? Will he do even more than he is already doing?

Mr. Brooke: It is because of the industry's underlying strength—not least in terms of technical resources, as well as creative and acting resources—that we are conducting our conversations. It may be worth recording that the bringing together of various aspects of film in my Department represents the first occasion on which the cultural and commercial considerations have been united in a single place.

Mr. Corbett: We welcome the talks between the Secretary of State and those involved in the film industry. I hope that he will also consult those who are active in film making in the regions; they have a role to play as well.
Films involving British producers, directors and writers have won about a third of the Hollywood Oscars over the past 20 years. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that last year only one major cinema film was made here? Is he aware that American films netted 10 times the £24·.4 million earned by British films in the United Kingdom last


year? Will he not introduce tax breaks and other incentives to help British film makers build on their success and compete more equally, here and in the international market, at a time of rising cinema attendances?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the talks in which we are engaged. I can give the House a further piece of news about the industry's achievements: of the 36 scripts chosen last week under the EC media programme, seven were British film scripts.
As for the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, although I may discuss the issue with the Chancellor, tax is essentially a matter for him.

Tourism

Mr. Coe: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to introduce more deregulation measures to help the tourist industry.

Mr. Sproat: I am deeply concerned about the reports of unnecessary and seemingly counter-productive regulatory burdens under which large sections of the tourism industry believe that they currently operate. I am therefore now inviting those involved in the tourism industry to write to me and/or to come and speak to me directly in the next month about problems arising from over-regulation. I shall be writing later today to all the regional tourist boards and other appropriate tourist bodies, inviting their views. I have already asked my officials to undertake an urgent and detailed' inquiry into burdensome regulations specifically in tourism. My Department will then produce a report on this important subject and make the results known before the House rises.

Mr. Coe: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and wish him particular luck with the part of his portfolio relating to sport—he will certainly need it.
I thank my hon. Friend for his specific and helpful reply. He should be aware that the tourism industry will be pleased and encouraged by his words. May I immediately take him up on his offer to consult directly with hoteliers and other branches of the industry, and ask him whether he will see a delegation from my constituency which will put to him at first hand the deeply damaging regulations which beset many hoteliers and most branches of the industry?

Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I should be extremely pleased to see a delegation from his constituency, because I know only too well that the south-west of England is one of the areas in which tourism is suffering particularly dramatically.

Mr. Raynsford: Does not the Minister recognise that, without proper and effective regulation on many aspects of our national heritage, we should not have much of a tourist industry, because historic buildings would have been demolished, our beauty spots destroyed by insensitive road development and works of art exported because of a lack of controls? Will he put aside the absurd ideological fetish of deregulation and recognise that there is a need to preserve what is best in Britain's heritage?

Mr. Sproat: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that of course there are many spheres in which regulation is extremely important. I have already mentioned fire regulation, and I agree that regulation to preserve and

conserve that which is best in our heritage is another. However, it does not mean that, while preserving good regulations, we should not consider the barmy ones, which is precisely what my Department is going to do— distinguish sharply and clearly between the two different types.

Mr. Gorst: Can my hon. Friend estimate what regulation is costing at the moment? If he is not able, at this stage, to give an estimate, will he ensure that, when the survey has been carried out, we are given figures as well as general facts?

Mr. Sproat: I will gladly do my very best to produce figures on the burdens that the tourist industry is suffering from regulation. It will not be easy, but we shall ask the industry for its best estimates, and we will certainly publish them.

Mr. Pendry: In welcoming the Minister to his new post and recognising his zealous approach to most regulations, may I remind him that the tourist retail task force initiative is well under way, and that many new measures of good deregulation could flow from its deliberations? Will he assure us that his initiative will not in any way hinder or duplicate its efforts? Will he accept it from me that what the industry wants from him is a clear commitment to restore the damaging cuts made by his predecessor to the English tourist board? As the chief executive of the board said, unless the Government make such an effort, there will be no meaningful services beyond 1994.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman, perfectly fairly, asks two quite separate questions. I give him the guarantee that he seeks on regulations: we will not hinder any work that anybody else is doing. We shall draw on work that other bodies are doing on deregulation and use it. On cuts in the ETB, it is quite impossible at a time of severe economic restraint for anybody to be wholly immune from economic restraint. The ETB must bear its burden. Tourism increased by 8 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. We have low interest rates and low inflation. Tourism is doing very well, and it is my intention to make it do even better.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a cost benefit analysis of rules and regulations as they affect tourism and other departments and that, where costs are disproportionate to the benefit that they would bring, the rules and regulations should be scrapped?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I assure him that we shall seek to make not only a compliance cost assessment of every regulation but a risk assessment to see whether it is worth the risk that it is trying to obviate. I give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks.

Broadcasting Act 1990

Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the working of the Broadcasting Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: The aim was to increase diversity and choice in radio and television service, and this is being achieved.

Mr. Mandelson: In view of the private conclave that the Secretary of State is holding with ITV bigwigs later this afternoon, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Government still believe in the principles of competition and regional diversity, as contained in the Broadcasting Act 1990, or now support greater concentration of ownership and takeovers among ITV companies? If it is the latter, what steps will he take to ensure that we do not suffer from a wave of foreign takeovers and invasions of British television companies?

Mr. Brooke: Since I took office, a number of television companies have asked to see me to discuss aspects of the 1990 Act. Some put one position, some put another, but these were a series of bilateral conversations in which the stations and companies argued their case. I thought that there was virtue in having a meeting, which I am holding this afternoon, at which it would be possible for all to express their opinions with others present so that there will be discussion among them. My job is to listen to the debate.

Mr. Alison: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Independent Television Commission to ensure in its review of the codes of practice for religious broadcasting that the Christian gospel, of which he is a doughty champion and which is an essential part of our cultural heritage, can be presented directly and unambiguously on all main independent television channels?

Mr. Brooke: I am conscious of the responsibility and intention of the ITC to review the code, and I shall be in touch with it about that review.

Mr. Maclennan: Has the Secretary of State yet had a chance to reach a conclusion on the representations that he has received from a number of companies about the allocation of transmission costs and the proposal to depart from the IBA formula that related costs to the earning power of regions? The proposals that have been made by the majority of companies in the Independent Television Companies Association would leave at least five of the small companies bearing a burden that would put at risk the continuance of television in those areas.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that propositions have been put to me by the association. My Department has been in touch with individual broad-casters on matters deriving from those propositions. I am addressing that matter at the moment.

Mr. John Greenway: As an adviser to Yorkshire Television, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the very courteous and constructive way in which he is listening to the real concerns about the future of commercial television in this country? He is right that there is a difference of view among regional franchise holders about the sort of structure needed for the ownership of television franchises in the United Kingdom. But the franchise holders are united in their request for an extension of the moratorium on foreign takeovers, as referred to by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). Will my right hon. Friend please see to it that that is done?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend identifies part of the problem that I was reflecting when I answered the hon. Member for Hartlepool. We do not enjoy unanimity in these matters, and that is one of the reasons why I wish to hear the companies debate the matter in my presence.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State reflect when he meets the ITV companies this afternoon that there is unanimity about the chaos caused to the companies by the Broadcasting Act 1990? Will he also reflect on the widespread belief that concentration of ownership will mean less regional diversity, less—not more—competition within ITV and less employment in the regions? Will he remember that the rationale for the Act was not to make the biggest profits for operators, but to ensure the survival of regional commercial television?

Mr. Brooke: I understand that, in circumstances such as Question Time, it can be impossible to expand on a particular point. However, the hon. Lady did not amplify her remark about chaos. With regard to the representations that she made about a particular point of view, they have been made to me before and, no doubt, will be made to me again later this afternoon by those directly involved.

Theatre and Dance Companies

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all those (a) theatre, (b) ballet, and (c) dance companies which have had their arts grant funding withdrawn in each of the last three years.

Mr. Sproat: Aggregate funding in these three areas by the Arts Council is currently more than £60 million. In the past three years, no theatre or ballet company has had its grant withdrawn by the Arts Council. Funding was withdrawn from one dance company, Extemporary Dance, in December 1991.

Mr. Hughes: Do the Minister and the Secretary of State realise that, unless some extra funding can be secured, the London City Ballet will have gone into liquidation and come to an end before the next Question Time on this issue? The company is extremely popular and successful and a high revenue earner, both at home and abroad. Would Ministers be willing to meet a deputation from all parts of the House in the next few days and before the deadline, to ensure we do not have the economic madness of a company going out of production that would cost the taxpayer more if it were not performing than if it was?

Mr. Sproat: I am well aware of the 3 July deadline to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I also think that his description of the work of the London City Ballet is accurate. I should be pleased to meet a delegation from all parts of the House to see what might be done. However, I would not wish to raise expectations too high, given that the Arts Council operates at arm's length and has decided that it does not want to continue to support the company.

Mr. Dicks: May I welcome my hon. Friend to his Front-Bench position? May I tell him that there are many thousands of people in the country who are sick and tired of any of that nonsense being funded from the public purse? Can he take the opportunity, at a time of financial stringency, to recommend to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that his Department be done away with altogether?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend's views on the matter are well known, and I take them seriously. [Interruption.] Well, I would say that many people—perhaps more outside the House than inside—who look at the £225 million that the Arts Council receives each year say that


that is equivalent to three brand-new hospitals. We have to look after the spiritual health as well as the physical state of the nation, but both should have their proper place in our accounting.

Mr. Sheldon: Has the Minister seen the new Globe theatre rising on the south bank? It is now visible even from the other side of the river. As the theatre has not received public funds and is nearing completion, will the Minister ensure that some funds are now made available to that project in some way that is open to him?

Mr. Sproat: I am not aware of the details of the case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. However. I will certainly look at the matter and give it proper consideration.

Industrial Heritage Year

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about Industrial Heritage Year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: I have received no representations, but I understand that there has been an encouraging response to the English tourist board's promotional campaign: "Experience the Making of Britain".

Mr. Thurnham: In view of the importance of Industrial Heritage Year in the north-west, may I extend an invitation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to visit the historic Hall i'th' Wood museum in my constituency, which is the birthplace of the industrial revolution, the home of Samuel Crompton and which is now very much in need of repair? It would be excellent if Industrial Heritage Year could be the occasion for that historic building to be restored properly.

Mr. Brooke: As my hon. Friend knows, I had the great pleasure of visiting his constituency in March so that we could both watch Bolton Wanderers win and we are both delighted by the success of Bolton Wanderers this season. I very much hope that there will be a further opportunity to visit Bolton in the reasonably near future.

Ms Eagle: Is not it a damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative rule that we are to have an Industrial Heritage Year when the Government have destroyed large swathes of British industry? All we are good at producing is museums of industrial heritage and not a good, viable industrial future for the people of this country.

Mr. Brooke: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) to the fact that we were talking about the residence of Samuel Crompton. We have an industrial heritage which dates back more than two centuries and it is something of which we are extremely proud.

Tourist Attractions (Signing)

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had about European signs for tourist attractions.

Mr. Sproat: I have had no such representations.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that there is a rumour that an elephant is to be used as the sign for a tourist attraction? Does he agree that elephants trumpet a lot, that they are lethargic and that they are very grey? Does he agree that it might be a good idea if the lot opposite changed the red rose to an elephant?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes his usual forthright and trenchant contributions to our deliberations.

Broadcasting Act 1990

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the workings of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

Mr. Brooke: I have received representations on a number of issues through meetings and correspondence with broadcasters and others, including some 90 letters from hon. Members this year up to the end of May.

Mr. Grocott: As the evidence is overwhelming, is it too much to hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that the Broadcasting Act 1990 was a disaster; that morale in the industry is at an all-time low and that about one third of the work force in independent television—skilled people—has been lost since the 1990 Act was passed; that there has been a steady drift of production facilities to London away from the regions and that there has been a very worrying and, indeed, frightening concentration of ownership within the industry?
British broadcasting, which was once admired throughout the world, is now drifting inexorably towards American-style broadcasting. Is it too much to hope that the Secretary of State, who is responsible for our national heritage, will acknowledge that broadcasting, which used to be part of our national heritage and which was admired, needs to be preserved and that he needs to review the 1990 Act if he is to do that?

Mr. Brooke: I would not for a moment dream of accepting the language that the hon. Gentleman used in posing the first part of his question. Indeed, many think that the transition which has flowed through the introduction of the 1990 Act has been remarkable. As to the further substance of what the hon. Gentleman said, I think that he knows from other places that I am as concerned as he is about ensuring that we retain a critical mass in British broadcasting which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is admired throughout the world.

Dr. Spink: I am amazed at the Luddite attitude of the Labour party. Does not my right hon. Friend recall that it was the Labour party which opposed the introduction of ITV—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we ask questions about Government policy in Question Time.

Dr. Spink: The Labour party also opposed the introduction of Channel 4. Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring the Labour party's continued hostility towards the extension of choice?

Madam Speaker: Order. I recall calling the hon. Gentleman to order previously on these matters. Hon.
Members must question Government policy at Question Time. The hon. Gentleman has one more minute to have another go.

Hon. Members: No.

English Tourist Board (Redundancies)

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to meet the chairman of the English tourist board to discuss staff redundancies.

Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend and I intend soon to meet Adele Biss, the new chairman of the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority, to discuss a range of issues, but I see no particular need to discuss staff redundancies.

Mr. Bayley: Given the disastrous state of the balance of payments, would it not make sense for the Government to put more resources into promoting tourism in Britain, to encourage our own citizens and citizens from abroad to go on holiday in our country? That would help our balance of payments.

Mr. Sproat: Well, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but, as I said in answer to an earlier question, last year the number of tourists in this country rose by 9 per cent. In the first quarter of this year, it has risen by another 8 per cent. on top of that 9 per cent. We have good exchange rates for tourists, low interest rates and low inflation. The tourist industry is doing extremely well. In those circumstances and in view of the economic constraints which we face, the actions that were taken were, on balance, very sensible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Select Committees (Staff)

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what is the policy of the National Audit Office in respect of secondment of professional staff to assist departmental Select Committees.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The policy of the National Audit Office is to respond positively to any request to second staff to a departmental Select Committee.

Mr. Bayley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be good for the staff of the National Audit Office regularly to be seconded to departmental Select Committees so that they would see how those Committees and the Public Accounts Committee complement each other in their work? On how many occasions, with the exception of the Defence Select Committee, have professional members of the staff of the National Audit Office been seconded to departmental Select Committees?

Sir Peter Hordern: There are three staff seconded to a Select Committee at present. Besides the Defence Select Committee, staff are seconded to the Social Security and Trade and Industry Select Committees. Altogether, staff are seconded to 47 organisations at home and abroad.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Fine Arts Heritage

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he is taking to ensure the retention of Britain's fine arts heritage in this country.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): The Waverley system of export controls, grants to national museums and galleries, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and several capital tax concessions encourage the retention of Britain's fine arts heritage.

Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the Waverley rules still allow too many examples of our national heritage to leave these shores? Will he consider tightening up those rules to ensure that more funds are available for retaining our prized fine arts heritage and that galleries are given more time to raise the money necessary to retain them?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that I would take the view that there was a failing in the Waverley rules, which are responsible for particular items being considered under export licence, but I understand the concern of a number of people about the amount of funds available to meet some of the appeals which consequently arise. In the past five years, just under half the applications that have been made have been refused and the item concerned retained in this country.

Dr. Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree also that some of the money that is required to retain some great works of art in the country might be found if fewer fat salaries were paid to the culture vultures who run the administration of the arts in Britain, and the arts councils in particular?

Mr. Brooke: The accounting behind that question must necessarily be somewhat indirect, in that the Arts Council of Great Britain is not responsible for funding applications under the Waverley rules, but the Government have recently employed consultants to review the Arts Council.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the system can work satisfactorily only if the in-lieu system works satisfactorily? In that context, has he seen the article in today's issue of The Daily Telegraph by Mr. Godfrey Barker, which speculates about the future of the Museums and Galleries Commission? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the commission will not be wound up, as it is not populated by fat cats receiving large salaries, to quote the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells)?

Mr. Brooke: I have seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers. I can give him a categorical assurance that there is no intention of winding up the Museums and Galleries Commission.

Film Industry

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the current level of support for the British film industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: My Department plans to spend £24·4 million on film support in 1993–94. In the 1979–80 financial year, direct Government support for film amounted to


some £12·5 million at 1993 prices. The Eady levy on box office receipts raised a further £17·25 million at 1993 prices in support of the film industry.

Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, as was said earlier, our film industry has many great talents in all areas of production—acting, directing and so—on but that other film industries around the world are being given a great deal of Government support to attract investment mainly from America and having production happen in their countries? What is the Government's reaction to what is happening in the global film market? What will his Department do to ensure that Britain's national pool of talent is preserved and expanded?

Mr. Brooke: I salute the hon. Lady for the seriousness of her question. In terms of support in other parts of the Community—perhaps I should confine myself to that at this juncture—some of the subsidy support is going straightforwardly on liguistic grounds for the cultural side of film and ensuring that films continue to be made in specific languages. I have taken the trouble to find out what assistance is available throughout the film industry and what it is in terms of the rest of the world. Because of that, we are having the conversations that I described earlier with different sectors of the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Disabled Access

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what expenditure has been authorised for accessibility for the disabled to the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): A comprehensive review of disabled access to the main public areas of the Palace of Westminster has recently been completed by a specialist consultant architect. That report is expected to be submitted to the Accommodation and Works Committee later this month. Cost estimates and a programme of work will be prepared once the Committee's recommendations are known. It is not possible to provide any meaningful estimate of the cost of work already undertaken as part of an ongoing policy to improve access for disabled persons.

Mr. Corbyn: It is more than 20 years since the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was passed by the House. I am sure that there are many who feel that it is inadequate that it should take so long before the House of Commons Commission produces a report on the matter. I ask the right hon. Member representing the Commission to expedite the report and publish it as quickly as possible, and recognise that the House is fundamentally inaccessible to many people who have sight difficulties, those who need wheelchair access, those who have hearing difficulties or those who simply want to come into the building to watch proceedings in their Parliament.
It is a disgrace that, in 1993, we still do not have full accessibility other than people in wheelchairs being taken in goods lifts by a different route. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the report is not simply

published and costed immediately but acted on immediately so that this disgrace and insult to the disabled of our country is ended once and for all.

Mr. Beith: It was the dissatisfaction of gaining access to the building for disabled people that led to the appointment of one of the most experienced and respected specialist architects in this field to produce the report. There will be wide support for the sense of urgency that the hon. Gentleman gives to the matter, and I will certainly communicate that to the Committee.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does the right hon. Member representing the Commission agree that it is entirely right for the House to put its house in order before it seeks to legislate for other buildings further throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman advances a good principle.

Visitors

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what financial provision has been made for improvements to the arrangements for hon. Members' visitors to Westminster.

Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): The first report from the Catering Committee on refreshment provision for line of route visitors, published on 25 May, recommends certain improvements in facilities for visitors, including a visitors' centre. These have yet to be costed, and their implementation will need to be co-ordinated with the results of the Catering Committee's current inquiry into proposals to modernise the kitchens and review the House's refreshment facilities. Specific provision will have to await any necessary approval by the relevant authorities and the House.

Mr. Flynn: Does the hon. Member agree that the House is looking for swift action on those proposals? Will he look at another matter, which causes great frustration; the absurd regulation—for a Government in the mood for getting rid of regulations—which limits the number of people in a hon. Member's party to 16? The usual number in such a party is a busload, 48. That regulation causes great frustration, irritation and extra work for hon. Members, their staff and the House of Commons staff. Can the limit be increased to 48?

Mr. Channon: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not a matter for me, but I will ensure that what he has said is noted by the relevant authorities. As to the first part of his question, the difficulty about the visitors' centre is that if the Westminster Hall cafeteria is turned into a visitors' centre, alternative accommodation will have to be provided for those who currently use it—and there is a great shortage of space in the House.

Sir Anthony Grant: On the second point raised by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), what is intolerable is the inconvenience and discomfort experienced by parties we bring here to see the House of Commons and the House of Lords. To take a party round the House nowadays is like getting in between the British Lions and New Zealand All Blacks rugby scrum. Rather


than increase the numbers, either there should be better organisation of the timing at which parties visit, or the numbers allowed should be smaller.

Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. Again, I will ensure that the relevant authorities examine that matter.

Smoking

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the policy with regard to smoking in the Palace of Westminster; and what plans he has to review this.

Mr. Beith: By long-established practice, there are certain parts of the House where smoking is not permitted, such as the Chamber, the Members' Lobby and part of the Tea Room. The Administration, Accommodation and Works and Catering Committees, and the Board of Management, have responsibility to determine whether any changes need to be made in areas for which they are responsible.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Is the right hon. Member aware of the report of the Health Education Authority on the impact of passive smoking? Is he further aware of a recent out-of-court settlement involving a local authority and a claim against it for compensation from one of its employees? Does he not think, in the light of the advice given by the Health Education Authority, that he has responsibility for the health and safety of people who work in the Palace of Westminster? Is not the House somewhat behind public authorities throughout the country, and many private employers, in the provision of a healthy and safe environment in which to work?

Mr. Beith: I am aware of all those matters. If it were left to me, smoking would be confined to a small area on the roof. The areas for which the Commission is responsible are those in which employees of the House work. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the matter to the Commission's attention, and it will be placed on the agenda. Hon. Members generally have a responsibility to the staff they employ—including those in these buildings —for the atmosphere and conditions in which they work.

Health and Safety Checks

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how frequently health and safety checks are carried out on office accommodation occupied by hon. Members and staff.

Mr. Beith: Regular safety checks of offices are carried out by departmental safety representatives, staff of the Parliamentary Works Directorate and the Fire Safety Manager. In addition, the Occupational Health Manager carries out visits to Members, Members' staff and staff of the House to give advice on health and safety matters. It is not possible to provide detailed statistics on the frequency of these various checks.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the right hon. Member share my concern that we ask staff to occupy accommodation which is subject to less rigorous health and safety checks than that of outside organisations? May I draw his attention to

the building which I occupy where there has not been a fire practice arranged in the past year, as far as I am aware, and where fire doors are frequently left propped open?

Mr. Beith: It is the policy of the Commission that checks and procedures in the House should be no less rigorous than those in force elsewhere. The hon. Lady's point will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he provides written records of the inspections, so that people can see that we are complying with all the regulations that Opposition Members would like to see introduced by the European social charter?

Mr. Beith: I believe that many of the checks to which I have referred are the subject of written records. If I can give the hon. Gentleman any more information on that point, I will certainly do so.

Line of Route (Facilities)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what financial provision is being directed towards improving facilities for members of the public on the line of route.

Mr. Channon: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago to his hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).

Mr. Skinner: Yes, I was listening to that. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when I took a party of disabled people round this place, we got into Westminster Hall and they could not get to a toilet there without climbing the stairs to the one in the Jubilee Room or going down the stairs to an interview room? Will he ensure that toilets are introduced that are suitable for the disabled? If it is possible for this mother of Parliaments to have 16 bars and boozers, there ought to be decent toilets for the disabled.

Mr. Channon: I have some sympathy for the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. He will have heard the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) announce a moment ago that there is to be a comprehensive study of the House and the needs of the disabled. Indeed, if the new visitors' centre is created, that will resolve the problem.

Working Hours

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is now in a position to report on his discussions on the hours of work of the House; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Discussions are continuing through the usual channels. Meanwhile, every effort is being made to arrange the business of the House in a way which reflects the recommendations of the Jopling report.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that in 1970 there were more hours worked in this place than are worked at the present time, and that it seems that, if the recommendations go ahead, there will be more opportunities for people to go on trips, which have gone


up by 10 per cent. in the intervening 23 years? There are 15 per cent. more moonlighting jobs in the 23 years. Will he, therefore, bear in mind that, if the Government go to the European Assembly and argue the toss against a 48-hour week for people outside this place, it is bordering on hypocrisy to say that hon. Members can do a 30-hour week, yet those outside the House have to do more than 48?

Mr. Newton: I will merely observe, as generously as I can manage, to the hon. Gentleman that I should be very surprised, knowing him, if he did not work at least as many hours as the difference between 30 and 48—without validating his figures—in service to his constituents in other ways. I am absolutely certain that most other hon. Members put in at least as many hours, and, indeed. many more. It is because of the desire to meet the many other requests, demands and needs of our constituents in other ways than by attending the House that there is the demand for some further reform of the hours.
As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot validate the statistics that he has given, but from my recollection of the first two Parliaments of which I was a Member, from 1974 to 1979, the House did sit rather longer hours than it does now. That is perhaps some measure of the progress that has been made, and I know that this will be welcome to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) as some indication of the progress that has been made already by informal means.

Mr. Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is doubtful whether any hon. Members work less than 48 hours a week? Does he recall that, in the report of the

Select Committee, we pointed out that the House sits more hours and days than almost any other assembly in the western world? Does he agree that the unanimous report on an all-party basis has been lying on the table for long enough? Is it not time that the shadow Cabinet got its act together and came to a conclusion, and allowed the House reach its agreement on the basis of the report of the Select Committee, which has broad acceptance and welcome throughout the House?

Mr. Newton: I certainly endorse what my right hon. Friend says about the basis on which his Committee's important report was made. My opposite number, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is unable to be here today, but the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who deputises for her, will have heard what has been said and will, I hope, transmit the message.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Lord President of the Council agree that the best way to reduce the working hours in this place is to devolve a large part of the business elsewhere by the establishment of a Scottish parliament, a Welsh parliament and, if required, regional parliaments throughout the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Newton: No, I do not agree with that. I agree that new opportunities can perhaps be created for debate on Scottish issues in the ways outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. We shall seek to make progress on those matters in the same way as on the report of the Jopling committee.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: We shall take the statement first.

Flooding (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): On Thursday and Friday last, several areas of Wales experienced very heavy thunderstorms which resulted in local but very severe flooding, particularly in the Llandudno area and Cardigan. I am sure the whole House would want to join me in sending our sympathy to all those whose homes have been damaged and lives affected by the disaster.
I am pleased to say that, as a result of strenuous efforts by the various service organisations and authorities, the flood waters have now been largely drained and cleaning up is in progress. The weather forecast is for some more moderate rain but not thunderstorms, which caused last week's events. I hope—as I am sure does the House—that the weather allows the clean-up to continue unimpeded.
I am sure many hon. Members will have seen pictures of the flooding on television. I visited the areas affected at Llandudno and heard first hand accounts from residents and officials. More than 5 in of rain fell in four hours and water was flowing in sheets off the hillsides. The streams and drains just could not cope. Many properties that would not normally expect to be at risk from flooding had water flowing right through them, including the ground floor of the local hospital. Those at the bottom of the hills fared even worse as the water collected. Pumps which normally drain the area were put out of action as they were overwhelmed by huge and unexpected quantities of water. We were very fortunate not to suffer any loss of life in those incidents.
The damage has been very extensive, with 500 to 600 people in the Aberconwy area having to be evacuated from their homes. I understand that the number of properties affected in some way is very much greater, with many families living upstairs or living in apartments in upper floors of blocks. Damage to the hospitals and their equipment is going to be extensive, particularly at the Llandudno general hospital, which was worst affected. There is also considerable damage to roads and services.
In the Cardigan area, the damage does not appear quite as extensive, but is nevertheless quite severe in places. Up to 100 properties seem to be affected and a few people, mainly elderly, have had to be evacuated. I am told that there is extensive damage to highways and other utilities.
Much of the praise for dealing with matters so well must go to the emergency services, particularly the fire brigades, the local authorities, hospital staff and the National Rivers Authority. Welsh Water has also been involved. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to join me in expressing appreciation for the dedicated work of that organisation, and for the work of the voluntary services.
Relief under the Bellwin scheme will he available to local authorities for emergency work. That will be provided as usual—85 per cent. of eligible expenditure over the threshold for each authority will be paid for. Officials are writing to authorities setting out the details of the scheme, and a copy of that letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
We are also in close touch with Gwynedd health authority to gauge the scale of problems associated with the flooding of the hospital. Once the picture is clear, the

Welsh Office will provide whatever assistance is required, above the usual threshold, from the pool of finance that is held for such incidents.
I would like also to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his diligence in visiting residents affected in Llandudno and for keeping me informed following my visit.

Mr. Ron Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I should like, on behalf of the Opposition, to express sympathy to the victims of the flood and to join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the magnificent efforts of the emergency services, the National Rivers Authority and the voluntary services.
The Secretary of State has outlined the extent of the damage. I am particularly concerned that the hands of the local authorities involved should be freed so that they may respond to the crisis and offer immediate assistance to the scores of families who will be unable for a number of months to return to their homes. Millions of pounds' worth of damage has been done. The cost to local authorities of repairs—especially repairs to houses and roads—will be considerable. I understand at this early stage that about 500 council properties have been damaged and that an initial estimate is that Aberconwy borough council is faced with a repair bill of at least £2 million. Gwynedd county council faces a repair bill estimated to be in excess of £1 million for the repair of flood damage to roads. The north Wales constabulary will have to meet a large bill for overtime, and the work of the Gwynedd and Clwyd fire brigades has added to the cost of the floods. Perhaps the Secretary of State can say what extra resources will be provided for the police and fire services.
It is estimated that about 2,500 people have been displaced as a result of the flooding. Does the Secretary of State intend to offer individual compensation for victims, especially those who are not adequately covered by personal insurance? Will he immediately contact the insurance companies to ensure that claims are dealt with quickly and without any unnecessary or bureaucratic delay?
Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the Welsh Office will provide adequate resources to cover the losses incurred by the local authorities? The last time the Bellwin formula was invoked—in December last year, in south Wales—Welsh Office aid was not forthcoming, despite the assurances of the previous Secretary of State, and the burden fell on local government, already under pressure from under-resourcing. Mid Glamorgan county council, for example, had to find £350.000, having received not a penny piece in aid from the Government.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm precisely what the Bellwin formula covers. Does it include structural damage to council housing and to roads? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if the Bellwin thresholds are not reached, Government money will nevertheless be available to cover the costs in full? It is ironic that the worst-hit council—Aberconwy—is the only one in Wales to be charge-capped. It has already been required to cut its budget by £167,000, and any additional expenditure incurred by it under the Bellwin formula will mean immediate cuts elsewhere in vital public services. To restore confidence, will the Secretary of State announce today the end of charge capping?
The people of Aberconwy have the Minister of State as their local Member of Parliament. As the Secretary of State has said, his right hon. Friend has been vigorous and forthcoming on behalf of those people. Other areas of Wales, especially Dyfed, have been similarly affected. That being the case, can the Secretary of State guarantee that equivalent levels of help will be available to them and to any other areas that might suffer this misfortune in the future?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with the sentiments that I expressed about the work of the voluntary services and the other bodies involved in the clean up and for his expressions of sympathy for those affected by the disaster.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, following legitimate claims under the Bellwin formula, assistance will be prompt. When the claims come in, I shall make it a personal concern to ensure that the money is forthcoming as rapidly as possible. Ninety per cent. of a reasonable claim will be met as quickly as may be, and the balance will be paid once the audited work has been completed. We cannot yet confirm that, because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the amount involved will be many millions of pounds. Obviously, we await a proper assessment. If many millions of pounds of extra revenue expenditure are incurred, then the formula allows us to meet those claims. All claims under the scheme will be considered promptly, and officials will follow up, if there are uncertainties with the local authority, to ensure the scheme's smooth operation.
The scheme covers all reasonable revenue expenditure incurred in putting matters right in the immediate clean up, and temporary accommodation for people who have been affected.
Of course, the scheme will cover the overtime of the public services that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
As for individual compensation, I believe that there is to be a mayoral appeal. I will take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the speed of insurance claims, and I will make a point of ensuring that the insurance companies know that we want the claims settled as promptly as possible. It is correct that most people are insured; in such cases the insurance companies should be forthcoming with the money—that is why people insure against this sort of eventuality.
The capping of Aberconwy council is a separate issue. I shall look at it shortly; I have not yet come to a decision. When I have, I will notify the House in the usual way.
I can assure the House that any other affected area will get similar treatment. If a local authority elsewhere in Wales incurs this sort of expenditure, it too can claim, and if it has legitimate claims they will be met under the Bellwin formula, just as surely as they will be in my right hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his visit to the flooded areas of north Wales was greatly appreciated by everyone there, particularly because it showed, at a very early stage, his commitment to the people of Wales?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remarks. I certainly learned a lot from the visit. It made me aware of just how quickly we need to get this operation into effect.

Mr. Alex Carlile: May I join the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in their praise for the emergency services, who did a marvellous job, and for others? I understand that members of the health authority were on their hands and knees mopping up in Llandudno general hospital immediately after the flooding.
I also ask the Secretary of State to recognise the great stoicism and courage that local residents have shown in facing up to the emergency.
I understand from contacts with Aberconwy district that many local people are reluctant to apply for social fund loans because they believe that they will be hounded to repay them when they are unable to do so. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House and local residents that he will contact the Department of Social Security to ensure that there is great forbearance in pursuing the repayment of loans, especially by pensioners, many of whom have had to cut insurance from their budgets? Will he also investigate whether the fund or the Welsh Office can provide grants that would enable people to meet essential expenditure which they otherwise cannot afford?
I also join the hon. Member for Caerphilly in urging the Secretary of State to ensure that this disaster is taken into account when he considers what to do about the capping of Aberconwy council.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that many residents in the affected area were responsible for acts of heroism and hard work in dealing with the immediate aftermath of the disaster. Like him, I wish to praise their efforts.
I am also delighted that many people in the health authority did such an excellent job, so that by the time I visited the hospital, not many hours after the flood, it was for the most part clean, thanks to their great efforts.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may also like to know that the Territorial Army has played a leading part in the clean-up operations. I believe that today a platoon of the Staffordshire regiment will also assist. That can be covered under the arrangements that I have described for the money.
I will look into the question of social fund loans. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would not want attempts to enforce repayment from those who clearly cannot repay, especially if their home lives have been badly disrupted by the disaster.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his visit to north Wales? He will know, as I do, that some of the most poignant images that we have seen are those of people who have, unfortunately, not made insurance arrangements and who appear to have lost everything. In the circumstances, I ask my right hon. Friend closely to examine what can be done to assist those people. The people of north Wales have the sympathy of all my constituents.
I have been in touch with the chief executives of each of my councils today. They have not been so badly affected by the heavy rain of the past few days, but my right hon. Friend will he aware that there has been an embankment slippage on the heart of Wales line, which has brought back images of the Glanrhyd rail disaster.
As a by-product of those events, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will speak to his right hon. Friend


the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that steps are taken under the railway privatisation arrangements to ensure that if, flooding damages the permanent way proper arrangements will be in place to meet the cost of its reinstatement?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point, which I shall take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is important that such facilities are properly and regularly inspected and that any remedial works are undertaken. That is also true of tips and other sites where there could be movement in heavy rains, and I shall ensure that they are properly inspected. They are inspected regularly.
I appreciate that, although my hon. Friend's constituents were not as badly affected as the people I described—especially those in Llandudno—they also suffered from the storms and I express my sympathy with them, as does my hon. Friend. As to those who are uninsured, I believe that a mayoral fund may help, and I shall examine the terms of that fund to find out whether the Government ought to do anything more.

Mr. Barry Jones: Were there any other recent floods prior to the distressing series of floods in the Llandudno area? Also, before those floods, had the Welsh Water authority been asked to invest in improving the infrastructure to guard against flooding?

Mr. Redwood: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been previous cases, which the House debated, for example, when the formula was similarly brought into operation. As a result of that, and of good housekeeping, there is a regular review of flood prevention and anti-flood devices. The Government, the water authorities and the National Rivers Authority have been involved. The work continues, and if more schemes are forthcoming which are suitable for investment, I would be happy to be associated with them.

Mr. David Harris: As someone whose constituency was severely hit by flooding earlier in the week, I join in the sympathy expressed by the House to all those who suffered in Wales. However, drawing on his experience as the Minister with responsibility for local government, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the help that the Government are rightly giving the people of Wales through the Bellwin rules will be applied equally, not just to other councils in the Principality, but to councils in England, and that the rules apply in England and Wales? If he is unable to give the answer, could he—

Madam Speaker: Order. There are procedures by which the hon. Gentleman can put his question to the appropriate Minister. He knows full well that we are dealing with a Welsh issue and with the Secretary of State for Wales. I will not allow a question to be put to a Minister who has no responsibility. I am sure that the Minister would like to answer the first part of the question.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful, Madam Speaker, and I understand my hon. Friend's wish to ask such a question. My hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment would tell my hon. Friend that no request has been received from any Cornish council. They would

consider one if it were made. In the case of Wales, we were in touch with councils which clearly wanted the Bellwin formula to be brought into operation. We have responded rapidly for that reason, and the need was very great.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I too join in the congratulations to the emergency services during the past two or three days. Their work has been excellent and, when we talk about compulsory competitive tendering, it is important to remember the work that they have done in very difficult circumstances.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that in Dyfed's case, for instance, the Bellwin formula will not be activated and therefore the county council will not get a penny piece of grant aid unless it spends more than £550,000 in the next two months? It would be wrong if, as a result of spending less than is allowed under the Bellwin formula, other services has to be cut to pay for repairs to bridges and roads in the county. The Bellwin formula needs to be reformed so that it refers not just to 85 per cent. grant aid above the threshold but to 85 per cent. of all expenditure incurred.

Mr. Redwood: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the formula works for districts in his area and not for the county. We shall have to see how much damage was done and how much expenditure is necessary. It is normal for councils to have some contingency provision in their budgets, and this is exactly the type of awful contingency for which such provisions are made. Of course, contingency funds are larger for large counties than for small districts. The Bellwin scheme deals with those large sums relative to the local authority's budget for which the authority could not have been expected to make provision itself. If that is the case in the hon. Gentleman's area at council or district level, Bellwin money will be available in exactly the way that I hope he would want.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Apart from insurance, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, has he had time to consider the anxieties of people in Wales whose houses might suffer long-term damage from waterlogging? In view of my hon. Friend's extensive environmental experience, would he consider issuing advice to householders on how best to protect wood, plaster and electrical wiring in their houses in the long term?

Mr. Redwood: I shall discuss that matter with my officials to see whether there is anything that we can do by way of extra guidance. The health authority has already issued guidance on immediate health issues; and my hon. Friend makes another important point about the long-term stability of the housing stock.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: No doubt on his journey from Llangollen to Llandudno the Minister did not travel by rail. I remind him that not one train is running there today and that some damage has been occasioned to the railway line. Will he raise that matter immediately with the Secretary of State for Transport, so that the line is not further run down? I also pay tribute to the relief workers of Gwynedd county council and Conwy borough council and people in the emergency services.
I have two important questions for the Minister. First, similar flooding has occurred in parts of Llandudno in the past five years. Why? Secondly, what lessons have the Government learnt from the similar incidents of


Towyn-Abergele? The real tragedy of that situation was that many people, especially the elderly, were uninsured. To leave matters to a mayoral fund is piffling and is not the answer. The Government must act now. They cannot wait for pensioners to chip into a mayoral fund. That is beyond belief. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that now is the time to take the bull by the horns.

Mr. Redwood: I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the main north Wales railway line is functioning. Of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be interested in the branch lines to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I went to and from Cardiff today by rail; I use rail wherever possible for my journeys.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about similar flooding in the past, but I do not think that the circumstances were entirely the same. It is difficult to design a drainage system that will cope with more than 5 in of rain in three hours. That results in a staggering amount of water, and it led to the great problems that we have seen. We will look at what happened to see whether anything can be done to prevent a future recurrence of the problem. The sheer weight and scale of the water was massive, making it difficult for any system to cope, even including quite new pumping systems.

Dr. Kim Howells: The hearts of my constituents go out to people in other parts of Wales who have suffered flooding: my constituents know about it only too well as it happened to them last winter. Like me. they will also hope that the householders who have been mentioned in the Chamber will be treated better than the householders of Pontypridd, many of whom were uninsured and had to make do with stoicism, about which the Secretary of State spoke earlier, in putting their houses right. If it had not been for the sterling work undertaken by Mid Glamorgan county council, Taff Ely borough council and the National Rivers Authority, those people's homes would still be flooded and in a mess.

Mr. Redwood: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am glad that he thinks that the arrangements today are more satisfactory than was the case for

Pontypridd. It is our intention to do everything that we reasonably can to ensure a smooth clean-up and get people back to their homes as quickly as possible.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is not it a fact that the Bellwin formula has nothing to do with providing help to people who need the aid but is only a fig leaf to hide the inadequacy of what the Government intend to offer people in need? How much has been paid in Wales under the Bellwin formula over the past five years?

Mr. Redwood: I do not have that figure to hand. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with it. The Bellwin formula is not a fig leaf. It is important assistance and it takes care of the bulk of the extra costs that local authorities incur as a result of a disaster of that nature. Where we have direct responsibility, as in the case of the hospital, that too will be put right at public expense through central taxpayer's reserves from the health authority. We must do everything in our power to put those things right. The right hon. Gentleman's charge is simply incorrect.

Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State agree that we must be sceptical about the views of experts who said at the weekend that floods occur once every century? The last time that we had to deal with this problem was not a century ago but six months ago. We asked his predecessor then for a thorough, proper and independent survey of the river banks and coastlines of Wales, to be conducted by the Welsh Office, local authorities and the National Rivers Authority. Does the Minister agree that that is the only long-term measure for the prevention of flooding and that that is the answer to the problems that we have seen over the past few days?

Mr. Redwood: I shall look thoroughly at what happened to see whether something can be done to make a recurrence of that awful event less likely. However, I shall repeat what I said earlier: the amount of rainfall was unprecedented. It was extreme. It was difficult for the drains to handle the water—even had they been considerably larger, it would still have been difficult for them to handle it—because of its sheer force and intensity.

Points of Order

Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will know that parts of Cornwall and Devon have suffered similar devastation from flooding in recent days, including the weekend. I understand that the local authorities concerned are making an application to the Department of the Environment this afternoon as there has been not only devastation to property and roads but tragic loss of life.
I wonder whether you, Madam Speaker, have had an application from Ministers at the Department of the Environment to make an equal and comparable statement to the one made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Wales? As yet, we have had no statement and no reassurance. People in the west country feel that there are double standards in this matter. If there has been an application, will there be a statement tomorrow?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker, I hope that I can be helpful.
I am aware that heavy rain and strong winds have caused severe flooding in many parts of England, including Cornwall. I am sure that the whole House wishes to express its condolences to the families of those who have died as a consequence of the flooding. However, as of yet, no requests for financial assistance have been received by—

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the Minister making a statement? I thought that he was responding to a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is placing me in some difficulty. I cannot allow a statement. If the hon. Gentleman is responding to a point of order, will he do so briefly?

Mr. Baldry: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If local authorities in Cornwall make applications under the Bellwin rules, they will be considered promptly and carefully. As yet, no application has been made.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the House is fully aware that the original question put to me concerned whether I had been told by a Minister that the Government were seeking to make a further statement on the flooding that, sadly, has affected many parts of the country. The answer to the point of order is that I have not been told by a Minister that he wishes to make a statement. The Minister has done his best to be helpful in this matter. I cannot allow questions to the Minister.

Mr. Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Taylor: Yes.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I will hear it.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I think that the Minister has just attempted to make a statement. Would it not be appropriate for him to make a full statement to the House, and to answer questions?

Madam Speaker: I have already dealt with that point: I have said that the Minister was not making a statment, but trying to be helpful in response to a point of order. It has been made clear to Ministers that hon. Members want a statement to be made; we must leave it at that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that the Sunday lunches of many of your parliamentary colleagues were greatly enhanced by your cheerful and elegant choice of records on "Desert Island Discs"?
May I ask why we were allowed only five minutes, rather than 10, for questions to the Lord President of the Council, for the first time in living memory? I had expected to be able to raise the cases of Simon Dunn—the prisoner who has been taken at Umm Qasr—and Kai Sondermann. In the context of the terrible things that have been happening to Iraqi babies—which I outlined on Friday, at columns 576–82—should not a Government statement be made about the cases of those unfortunate prisoners, the whole question of sanctions and the need for discussions about sanctions to take place with Iraq before anything is done about the prisoners?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is very cunning. Many of us are very sad that his question was not reached today, but he must not try to make that a point of order for me. The length of time allowed for Ministers to answer questions is a matter for the usual channels, not for me.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks. I hope he noted that I chose to take the Mace with me to the desert island: that might have given the House a few more days' recess until I was found.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a separate point of order, of which I gave you notice, about a matter affecting hon. Members' right to intervene in immigration cases—a most important right, which you will undoubtedly have exercised on numerous occasions in your constituency.
On Friday night, I was informed that a constituent, Mrs. Abida Parveen, had been arrested, and was to be deported to Pakistan on Saturday. I contacted Bradford police at 10.30 pm; however, the custody officer refused to disclose details of the arrangements for her deportation, the name or telephone number of the immigration officer concerned, the contact telephone number for her solicitor or the duty solicitor, and even information about the arrangements that were being made.
It is clear that the existing arrangements for hon. Members to make representations in emergency immigration cases—especially those concerning threatened deportation—have broken down. Will you consider—I emphasise the word "consider"—convening a Speaker's conference of interested parties in the House with the Home Office, the immigration service and the police, to ensure that new arrangements can be devised to give hon. Members a proper opportunity to intervene promptly and effectively, with the full co-operation of all the agencies concerned?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a longstanding Member of the House. He is raising with me a matter of Government policy. As a long-standing Member of Parliament, he knows that he could raise the matter


directly with the Minister concerned by various methods and procedures, and on various occasions, and receive the full reply that I know he seeks.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As you have rightly said, the existing arrangements are the Home Secretary's responsibility. It is now self-evident to many hon. Members that those arrangements have broken down. As the House constitutes the thin line between constituents' being deported—in many cases, unfairly and unlawfully—and their being given their full right to make representations, along with hon. Members, I am now appealing to you, Madam Speaker. I am asking whether you, as guardian of the rights of hon. Members and those of the House, will convene a conference which, hopefully, will be able to reach a conclusion and devise proper arrangements for hon. Members to make the representations that I seek to secure.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has every right and opportunity to make representations through the usual procedures of the House. I cannot specify to him across the Floor of the House the procedures under which he could do so. If he wishes to come and see me, I shall be as helpful as possible. It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman. This is an individual case, and we must all represent our constituents to the best of our ability and in the way that the House allows us. I can take it no further at this stage.

Mr. David Harris: I am sorry to raise the question of flooding again, but could I—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: It is a point of order.

Madam Speaker: That is better.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you help me with a difficulty facing the House? As you will

remember, at Question Time I attempted to ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether what he was announcing for Wales was the equivalent of the system for England. You rightly said that he was not responsible for the Bellwin rules as applied to England. If I put the same question to an Environment Minister, he would no doubt say that he was not responsible for the rules in Wales.
What I and my parliamentary colleagues from Cornwall in particular are concerned to do, in the light of the flooding that we have just suffered, is to establish that the ground rules of what has been announced today by the Secretary of State for Wales also apply to England. Can you advise me, Madam Speaker, on how I can get an answer to that question?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time. He knows that he can table a written or oral question. If he has any problem with procedure, he should apply to the usual channels, or come to see me and I shall be pleased to advise him.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

OVERSEAS GOVERNMENTS (DEBTS)

That the draft Debts of Overseas Governments (Determination of Relevant Percentage) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (FEES)

That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Housing and Urban Development Bill

(changed to

Orders of the Day — LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT BILL)

Lords amendments considered.

Ordered,

That the Lords amendments to the Housing and Urban Development Bill be considered in the following order, namely: Nos. 1 to 22, 219 to 226, 23 to 38, 227, 39 and 40, 228 to 231, 41 to 48, 232 to 244, 49 and 50, 245 to 257, 51 to 77, 258, 78 to 83, 259 to 264, 84 to 90, 265, 91 to 163, 266, 164 to 215, 267 to 278, 216 to 218 and 279 to 283.— [Sir George Young.]

Clause 1

THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 17, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this we shall consider the following Lords amendments: Nos. 5, 8, 9, 13, 20, 32, 36, 45, 46, 51, 53, 56 to 58, 60, 68, 75, 77, 78, 84, 94, 105, 106, 108 to 110, 116, 125, 129 to 131, 133, 134, 136, 140 to 142, 144, 148 to 152, 154 to 156, 160 to 162, 216, 219, 221, 223, 229, 231, 236 to 239, 243, 255, 256, 258, 260, 261, 263, 264,271, 273 and 277

Mr. Baldry: This is a large group of amendments. They are almost entirely drafting and technical amendments, which are required to clarify some provisions, correct cross-references and amend minor defects. They were made in response to comments received and after further consideration of the Bill elsewhere. They ensure that the Bill's provisions work more effectively. I do not intend to take the time of the House in discussing any of them individually. However, I shall mention amendment No. 216, which changes the name of the Bill to "Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill".
The original short title of the Bill was drafted to be as short as possible so that it could be easily referred to in other Acts and subordinate legislation and by anyone seeking to use its provisions. However, it was argued in another place that the title was not helpful as it did not refer to the leasehold provisions that take up the whole of part I and are of great interest to many people. The new title reflects the structure of the Bill and makes it clear that it covers important reforms to the leasehold system.

Mr. John Battle: We are faintly surprised that the Government decided to change the title of the Bill. The Bill's provisions for housing have been residualised and it will not create a single new home, so perhaps it is not surprising that the Government have decided to change the emphasis to leasehold enfranchisement.
I do not wish to open a debate on the issue, but I must say that the Bill creates expectations for the 750,000 leaseholders but, as I am sure will be revealed in our debate

and as it has been revealed in another place and in Committee, it will short-change many leaseholders who think that they will be enfranchised but who will discover that they will not receive franchise entitlement.
The low rent test still appears in all the amendments, despite all the attempts in the House and in the other place to change it. That will disqualify many of those 750,000 people from leasehold enfranchisement. The Bill claims to give rights to leaseholders—even its title has now been changed to stress leasehold enfranchisement—but, in practice, many people will be disappointed. In practice, and on the face of the Bill, the rights that were promised in the consultation paper will be dashed on the rocks of expediency by the Government and people will not receive their entitlements.
The Labour party believes that restoring those rights is one way in which the Government can fulfil their original pledge. Only a few hours ago, the Prime Minister said that he would honour all the Conservative party's manifesto commitments, yet many of the rights promised in the original title of the Bill have been removed. In other words, the Bill will not do what the Government claimed. It will short-change many leaseholders, and a change of title will not cover up that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

PREMISES EXCLUDED FROM RIGHT

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 5, line 18, leave out from ("are") to ("and") in line 19 and insert("neither—

(i) occupied, or intended to be occupied, for residential purposes, nor

(ii) comprised in any common parts of the premises;")

Madam Speaker: With this, we will take Lords amendment No. 3.

The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendments are intended to clarify the definition of non-residential parts of premises so that the eligibility of buildings can be more easily determined.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 5

QUALIFYING TENANTS

Lords amendment: No. 6, in, page 6, line 7, at end insert—("(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply where the immediate landlord under the lease is a registered housing association and all the flats in the premises are—

(a) particularly suitable, having regard to their location, size, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and

(b) are occupied by persons of pensionable age on physically disabled persons, and

(c) have special facilities which include the services of either a resident warden or a non-resident warden and a means for calling them.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.— [ Mr. Baldry.]

Mr. Battle: I am surprised that the Government tabled the motion. Lords amendment No. 6 omits sheltered housing and accommodation that is specially adapted for


disabled and elderly people. I should have thought that it is a common sense and reasonable amendment that the Government would accept. In all other cases, the Government take away the rights of leaseholders left, right and centre by tightening the framework of the Bill, but in this case—I press the Government to give their estimate of the number of flats that are affected—when common sense would suggest that there should be an exemption to ensure that sheltered housing and specially adapted dwellings remain, they have decided to ensure that there is a right to enfranchisement. They would do far better to address the real needs of people in flats and houses who will be denied enfranchisement by the strict low-rent test and other measures, including some that they accepted in the other place.
Interestingly, when the amendment was moved in the other place, there were no Tellers, because the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip were not in the Chamber when a vote was sprung on the Government. In that sense, the Government lost it without even opposing it, yet now they come back to the House to try to repair the results of their incompetence in the other place.
It is surprising that housing association schemes are now included. The amendment would exclude leasehold schemes for elderly people from leasehold enfrachisement where the freeholder is a registered housing association. Under the Bill as drafted, leaseholders of housing association sheltered housing schemes can exercise enfranchisement where they own 100 per cent. of the leasehold interests.
The amendment seeks to exclude sheltered housing from the enfranchisement provisions. It would affect only a tiny number of schemes where the association had not received housing association grant. For housing association grant-funded schemes, the association is required to retain 20 per cent. of the equity. Under clause 6, enfranchisement would not then apply. Instead, under chapter II, the individual leaseholder would have an automatic right to renew the lease, but many housing associations have undertaken sheltered housing schemes without using housing association grants.
The amendment would affect such schemes. The proposal was not made lightly by the National Federation of Housing Associations, on behalf of all housing associations. It argues that, if the Government now decide to vote against the Lords amendment, the Bill would discriminate against elderly and disabled people, for whom special provision has been made.
Faced with the needs of an aging population, housing associations that have undertaken leasehold schemes to provide sheltered housing for elderly people are most concerned that, if leasehold enfranchisement applies to such housing it could, in time, lead to the loss of the warden service and other special provisions simply because they cost money. Ultimately, those properties could be sold to non-elderly buyers, which in turn would reduce the overall supply of sheltered accommodation at precisely the time when the need for it is increasing. According to Government figures, by the year 2001 there will be 1 million people in Britain over 85. The need for sheltered accommodation is increasing and the Government's petty approach, which will diminish stock, is damaging.
Why are the Government making such a proposal? I do not think that they have an argument. The amendment was carefully drafted to ensure that only those schemes that genuinely provide sheltered housing are included.
What is more, the wording of paragraph 10 of schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985—the Government's own housing legislation—excludes sheltered housing from the right-to-buy provision precisely because it would diminish the amount of housing stock in Britain at a time when we need a supply of sheltered housing to rent. As the amendment mirrors almost exactly the wording of paragraph 10 of schedule 5 to the 1985 Act, it seems illogical, irrational and petty that the Government should now turn against it.
It may be suggested that restrictive covenants could do the job as well as the amendment, but they could be changed by agreement between the new freeholder and leaseholders once the freehold has passed to another body. The retention of sheltered housing for its original purpose cannot therefore be guaranteed by those restrictive covenants. That could be achieved only by excluding such housing from the Bill's provisions.
I challenge the Minister—before he pushes the motion through on the nod—to tell the House how many properties will be affected and how many people will be enfranchised by the provision. He should compare and contrast that with the number of people who will be unfairly excluded from leasehold enfranchisement by the restrictive clauses that the Government have built into the Bill, and also by the further restrictive clauses that the Government have accepted from the other place.
If the clause is accepted, and housing associations' sheltered housing schemes are excluded from enfranchisement, elderly leaseholders would automatically receive the right under chapter II of the Bill to renew their lease in line with leaseholders in housing association grant-funded schemes. It could be argued—I should be interested to hear the Minister's opinion—that that right, rather than outright enfranchisement, would be more beneficial to the elderly people concerned. It would guarantee that the amount of sheltered and specially adapted accommodation to rent could be expanded.

Mr. Baldry: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to discuss the amendment with organisations such as Age Concern since it was debated in the other place.
Since the amendment was accepted in the Lords, we have received representations from organisations such as Age Concern and the Association of Retired Persons, which have expressed their dismay at the exemption from enfranchisement of such developments. The amendment is clearly discriminatory, and that is their concern. The amendment deliberately discriminates against the elderly. There is no fundamental reason why developments for the elderly and disabled that are owned by housing associations should be excluded from the scope of enfranchisement.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed a concern—also put forward by the National Federation of Housing Associations—that, once the freehold has been bought, flats may be sold to people who are neither old nor disabled. That is a misunderstanding. Flats would not necessarily move out of the sheltered housing sector. Enfranchisement does not affect the terms of leases, so any restrictive covenants which might, for instance, specify that the flats were to be let only to the elderly, will remain in force after the freehold has been bought. Such covenants in the leases of non-participants cannot be changed without the agreement of both parties to the lease. Those would include housing associations.
The Lords amendment clearly discriminates against the elderly. It has met with vehement opposition from organisations such as Age Concern, and I urge the House to disagree with it.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 148.

Division No. 294]
[4.22 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Aitken, Jonathan
Evennett, David


Alexander, Richard
Faber, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Fabricant, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arbuthnot, James
Fishburn, Dudley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aspinwall, Jack
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
French, Douglas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gale, Roger


Bates, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hague, William


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt'Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick



Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kilfedder, Sir James


Eggar, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Elletson, Harold
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)





Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knox, Sir David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Legg, Barry
Sackville, Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lidington, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Maclean, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spring, Richard


Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Maitland, Lady Olga
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mills, Iain
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neubert, Sir Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Watts, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Ray


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whittingdale, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Powell, William (Corby)
Willetts, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Riddick, Graham



Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Caborn, Richard


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Barnes, Harry
Clapham, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cryer, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Boyce, Jimmy
Darling, Alistair


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)






Denham, John
Mandelson, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Donohoe, Brian H.
Meale, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Michael, Alun


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Morgan, Rhodri


Eagle, Ms Angela
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Eastham, Ken
Mowlam, Marjorie


Enright, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Fisher, Mark
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John
Pickthall, Colin


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pope, Greg


Gordon, Mildred
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prescott, John


Grocott, Bruce
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gunnell, John
Raynsford, Nick


Hall, Mike
Rendel, David


Hanson, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hardy, Peter
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Harvey, Nick
Rogers, Allan


Henderson, Doug
Rooney, Terry


Hinchliffe, David
Rowlands, Ted


Hoey, Kate
Ruddock, Joan


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hutton, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Illsley, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Spellar, John


Jamieson, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

 
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Stott, Roger


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Straw, Jack


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Tyler, Paul


Keen, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Khabra, Piara S.
Wareing, Robert N


Kirkwood, Archy
Wicks, Malcolm


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Lewis, Terry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Litherland, Robert
Wise, Audrey


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Worthington, Tony


Lynne, Ms Liz
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McAllion, John



McCartney, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


McFall, John
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Madden, Max
Mr. Gordon McMaster.

Question accordingly agreed to.

After Clause 5

Lords amendment: No. 7, insert the following new clause—

Qualifying tenants satisfying residence condition—

(".—(1) For the purposes of this Chapter a qualifying tenant of a flat satisfies the residence condition at any time when the condition specified in subsection (2) is satisfied with respect to him.

(2) That condition is that the tenant has occupied the flat as his only or principal home—

(a) for the last twelve months, or
(b) for periods amounting to three years in the last ten years, whether or not he has used it also for other purposes.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) any reference to the tenant's flat includes a reference to part of it; and

(b) it is immaterial whether at any particular time the tenant's occupation was in right of the lease by virtue of which he is a qualifying tenant or in right of some other lease or otherwise;

but any occupation by a company or other artificial person, or (where the tenant is a corporation sole) by the corporator, shall not be regarded as occupation for the purposes of that subsection.

(4) In the case of a lease held by joint tenants—

(a) the condition specified in subsection (2) need only be satisfied with respect to one of the joint tenants; and
(b) subsection (3) shall apply accordingly (the reference to the lease by virtue of which the tenant is a qualifying tenant being read for this purpose as a reference to the lease by virtue of which the joint tenants are a qualifying tenant).")

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 16, 18, 19, 22, 54, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 70, 222 and 225.

Sir George Young: I shall speak briefly to the amendments and then speak again if there are any issues that the House wishes to raise.
When the Bill left the House for another place, it contained no test to residence on qualifying tenants that had to be satisfied before either of the new rights—collective enfranchisement or individual lease renewal—could be exercised, but there was a strong feeling that there should be a residence qualification. Two groups of amendments constitute the Government's response. Amendments Nos. 54, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66 and 70 introduce a residence test that qualifying tenants will have to satisfy before they can obtain a new lease under the provisions of chapter 2. We have followed the principle of the test provided for in the 1967 Act that is applied to individual tenants of houses.
The remaining amendments in the group introduce a residence test for collective enfranchisement. Basically, the new test requires half of the participating tenants to be residents. The new test is intended to prevent a majority of non-resident long leaseholders from purchasing their landlord's interests. Our declared policy is that flat owners should be able to gain ownership and control of their blocks. The test does not seriously interfere with that objective but clearly signals that flat owners cannot take over if only a minority of the participants live or have lived for significant periods in their flats. That amendment will be appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In another place, Lord Williams, representing the Labour party, said that he had sympathy with the idea of a resident test that supported the principle that companies and absentee landlords should not be allowed to take control of what he called "real people". Lord Strathclyde confirmed that these amendments will not disfranchise many blocks but will exorcise the spectre of control by an absent minority.

Mr. Battle: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his recent appointment, and wish him well. It is fair to say that he is the longest serving Minister in his post. I hope that his new appointment will take him into the inner sanctum of Government and perhaps a little closer to the Treasury, so that he can apply some real pressure for housing resources in the future.
We now move to the group of amendments, headed by amendment No. 7, that start to tighten the rights of leaseholders with regard to enfranchisement. When leaseholders examine the Bill, they will discover that the reforms are not as substantial or as far-reaching as they expected.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Very good.

Mr. Battle: That shows that there is still a difference between those Conservative Members who agree with the Government's manifesto commitment to give 750,000 leaseholders real enfranchisement and those Conservative Back Benchers who are fighting a rearguard action in another place and in this House to take away that right. Leaseholders will know that they have been short-changed; their expectations of leasehold reform have been raised—it is there on the face of the Bill—but in practice, the hedging and disqualifications will mean that those 750,000 leaseholders will not get enfranchisement after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The Bill is hedged with disqualifications, and the low rent test is the primary one. A Labour Government will abolish that test. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have said that a Labour Government are committed to abolishing that test, and we will stick with that commitment because the test is discriminatory and ensures that people who should have the right to leasehold and enfranchisement will not have that right.
Clause 7 is not as strong as the original clause, which said that there should be a three-year test of residence before people could get enfranchisement. That was pushed hard on the Government by those defending the great estates—we sometimes refer to them as the Duke of Westminster and his merry men, who are holding on to their entrenched interests. Thankfully, the Government did not agree with that argument.
We are still left with a one-year residence test. Effectively, the Government are gradually narrowing the range of eligibility. As a result of the new clauses and amendments to the Bill, the Government are limiting eligibility for enfranchisement. They will now offer such enfranchisement to but a tiny fraction of the leaseholders who expected to receive it once the Bill was enacted.
In effect, all long-term leaseholders of houses have no chance or hope of enfranchisement. The Government have offered a banner right, but they have qualified it away. They have whittled down the number of those who will be eligible. The Government have created expectations, but, in common with the citizens charter, in reality we are left with a damp squib on a dull day. Many who expected the rights that the Government promised them in the manifesto will now discover that they are not eligible to receive them.
Lord Strathclyde claimed that the Government wanted
to keep exemption from leasehold enfranchisement to an absolute minimum"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 1993; Vol. 543, c. 1037.]
In other words, the Government maintain that it is their intention to give enfranchisement to as many long leaseholders as possible. That will not happen.
It is important to consider the substance of Lords amendment No. 7. To insert a residence qualification into the current proposals mean that, because of the collective nature of enfranchisement, particularly of flats, any

residence test will deprive those who pass it, as well as those who do not, of the chance of becoming full owners of their homes. We accept that, unlike other tests previously proposed and rejected, the new residence test will not wreck the Bill, but it could have certain repercussions.
The research of the Consumers Association, which we discussed in Committee, spelled out that a high proportion of flat owners tend to own their properties for a relatively short time. That fact, taken with the two-thirds majority requirement for enfranchisement, which has now been stiffened by the proviso relating to not less than 50 per cent. of all flats, means that any residence test is bound to have a significant and unfair effect, because it will exclude flat owners in particular from any chance of enfranchisement.
When the residence test was promoted in the other place, emphasis was placed on the hypothetical examples of the enfranchisement of properties owned by companies and foreign residents. Let us put things in perspective. I believe that the vast majority of flats are owned by ordinary British citizens, who have always lived here. Although recent economic difficulties may have forced some of them to become non-resident owners—we all know that repossessions have taken their toll and that negative equity problems have pushed people into difficulties—the residential qualification, albeit narrow, will reduce the number of those who are entitled to enfranchisement under the Bill.
The Government set out with a great intention. The Prime Minister suggested on the eve of the general election that about 750,000 leaseholders would receive the right to leasehold enfranchisement once the Government were re-elected. As in many other areas of policy, the Government have pared that offer and hedged it with disqualifications. They have built up expectations only to dash them on the rocks of Government expendiency. Those who expect to be enfranchised will, sadly, find out that they are denied that right. Sadly, they will only discover that once the Bill is enacted.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I echo what the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said about the recent honour bestowed on my right hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that many other hon. Members are pleased to register their pleasure at that. May I also declare, for the last time, what I am told is not, strictly, an interest: I hold the leasehold of a flat in my constituency.
The Bill is an excellent piece of legislation, and it is characteristically churlish of Opposition Members to criticise it, particularly when they could muster only a measly 148 votes in the previous Division. That reveals their level of genuine interest in this important, bold and imaginative Bill, which will redeem an important and widely welcomed manifesto pledge.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that the central provisions of the Bill have emerged largely unscathed from another place. It is an excellent Bill, and it has been my desire throughout its passage to ensure that the provisions offered by it are available to as many people as possible.
I appreciate the concern that underlies the new clause tabled in amendment No. 7 about speculators who may seek to advantage themselves under the Bill, instead of the


genuine leaseholders whom the Bill is designed to help. I am concerned about some of the effects of the new clause, especially when one considers the other hurdles to be negotiated under the Bill, particularly the two-thirds test.
The terms of the new clause are somewhat less onerous than a similar clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), which was defeated in the House. It follows the same principle, however, and I remember saying on that occasion in February that my hon. Friend's proposed new clause could emasculate the Bill.
I have a number of concerns that I should like to raise, particularly in the context of my constituency, and in similar constituencies along the south coast. As I said in a previous debate, I am concerned about the effects of the new clause on holiday homes. Eastbourne is a popular place in which to buy such properties, and they are often purchased by perfectly ordinary people who are in no sense property speculators.
It is also important to consider the effect of the new clause on flats that are rented out for a short period or owned by people who are temporarily working abroad. Of great importance for somewhere like Eastbourne, where 30 per cent. of the population are of retirement age, is the position of retirement homes. Many people put their savings into such property in advance and anticipation of their retirement and, for a time, it is not regarded as the principal place of residence.
It is also important to consider the necessary and natural movement of people within a block of flats. That may be a more important factor in the London area, where the population is subject to greater shifts, but any block of flats is subject to a turnover of residents. In some cases, that would make for a fundamental mathematical problem in reaching the qualifications under the Bill, particularly when they are to be overlain by a new residence qualification. It is also important to consider the knock-on effect of such a proposal. That qualification, apart from making it impossible for particular individuals to qualify for enfranchisement, makes it more difficult, if not impossible, for others in a particular block of flats to qualify. Such individuals might well qualify in every other respect under the Bill.
I do not wish to hinder the progress of this important Bill; the sooner it is on the statute book the better. I wonder whether any research has been carried out, however, on the numbers likely to be directly affected by the new residence qualification. When the operation of the Bill is reviewed, as I am sure that it will be in due course, perhaps my right hon. Friend will undertake that, whenever that may be, that review will consider the effect of the new clause specificially, as well as other aspects that have been mentioned, such as the low rent test.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I, too, would like to raise doubts about the impact of this clause, and follow the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who rightly expressed concern that the impact might be to make it difficult, in certain circumstances, for leaseholders to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill.
On Report, I highlighted the phenomenon that was noticed in parts of Kensington, where one particular landlord, Smith Charity, had been involved in the practice of letting an increasing proportion of its properties to companies as a deliberate block.
I put it to the Minister that there is an obvious risk that landlords who seek to frustrate the intentions of the Bill —there is no question but that many large estates and others are deliberately seeking to prevent the Bill from having the effect that most hon. Members wish to see, which is for leaseholders to have the opportunity of enfranchisement—would naturally, as a result of this amendment, have an incentive to consider letting a significant proportion of the properties that become vacant in blocks of flats to companies, to ensure that the 50 per cent. threshold could not be met. That is an obvious loophole, which I fear may be exploited to frustrate the intentions of the legislation.
I therefore ask the Minister—adding to the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne—whether he will give thought to how the working of this provision is to be monitored, and what steps he intends to take to ensure that, if he receives representations from leaseholders in certain areas that their wish to enfranchise is being frustrated by the effect of this provision, this matter will once again come up for review. While we understand the perfectly reasonable wish to ensure that the benefits accrue only to bona fide leaseholders, the effect of this provision could be to frustrate some of them. I hope that the Minister will respond to this point.
I also ask him to be more specific about the numbers. If I remember correctly, he said in his opening remarks that the clause would disfranchise only a limited number of blocks. What number does his Department expect to he ruled out as a result of this provision? Will he go a bit further and tell us—as he and his colleagues have not done in the earlier stages of the Bill's passage through the House —how many leaseholders they expect to benefit from the Bill and enfranchise their homes in the course of the next few years? The Government have been strong on expressions of good intention about this Bill but very weak indeed on any forecast.
I know that the Minister will say that it is up to the leaseholders to decide, but in any matter of policy the Government have to make an estimate of the likely effect of what they are doing. Clearly, if there were no interest at all, it would be a waste of Parliament's time for us to be discussing all these very detailed, complicated and tortuous provisions. Some of us who sat on the Committee considering the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 may wonder whether our time was well spent then, given the very limited take-up of that piece of legislation.
So I put it to the Minister that he owes the House some indication of the level of take-up that can be expected. Obviously, it will not be the full 750,000, but can we expect half that total? Can we expect 375,000 households to be seeking to enfranchise in, say, the lifetime of this Parliament, or will it be nearer 100,000 or fewer than that?
Without some indication of the extent to which the provisions of this Bill are likely to be taken up, we have to express some scepticism about whether the good intentions which the Government have expressed with regard to these measures will work through in practice to the benefit of leaseholders. We fear that the complexity of the legislation and the obstacles that undoubtedly exist, which will be to some extent compounded by this residence test, will deter bona fide leaseholders who want to buy the freehold of their homes, and prevent them from doing so.
I hope that the Minister will give us some answers on these points.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene briefly. I have no wish to take up the time of the House for too long, being one of those who are anxious to see the Bill on the statute book.
At the outset, I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his appointment to the Privy Council. I sometimes think that, for his stewardship of this Bill alone, he qualifies for that privilege and honour.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who put the case very well.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to the briefing material that many of us have received from the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee, which quite rightly put the case for reducing the residence qualification to the absolute minimum. Many of my constituents agree with that. Nevertheless, this Bill, as it affects leasehold reform, is controversial in both this place and the other place, and compromises inevitably have to be accepted.
I hope that this amendment will succeed, although I doubt it. I hope that the Government will feel that they can continue actively to monitor the impact of this residence qualification and, if it should prove an obstacle to the intentions of the Bill as a whole, will take the opportunity on some future occasion to rectify the matter.
Many of my constituents live in apartment blocks in the centre of London, in the city of Westminster, where there is a stable community, while others may live in apartment blocks where there is greater mobility. It is among the latter that the problem may arise, and that is an area to which I hope that we shall return on a future occasion should there be genuine difficulty.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I begin by reminding the House of two points that I made when the Bill was before it on Report stage and Third Reading.
First, I remind the House that I am an owner of rented property, although I am advised that none of it falls within the provisions of this Bill.
Secondly, I repeat what I said on Third Reading: that, in the 28 years that I have been in this House, I can recall no piece of legislation that makes me more ashamed of what my party proposes than this wretched, miserable Bill. It is a totally lamentable Bill. To tear up agreements freely entered into by people, without duress, and to have the element of confiscation that this Bill has, is entirely against the philosophy of the party that I have represented in the House for all those years.
I am enormously unhappy about this, and I could not disagree more with my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler).
However, I have to accept that amendment No. 7 is a modest improvement to the Bill. It does not make the Bill acceptable, in my view, but it is a modest improvement, and I hope very much that the House will accept it.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I intervene very briefly to say how much I agree with the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). This is a reprehensible piece of legislation. One of its worst features is the invitation to speculation that no residence qualification would have brought. Therefore, I look upon it as a distinct improvement to the Bill that there now has to be a personal residence qualification. Those who take a

different view from the Government are told that the Government made a manifesto commitment, but that commitment applied to occupied flats and was designed to help individuals. It was not intended to encourage speculation. Therefore, I believe that the provision is an essential safeguard, and I am extremely happy to see it before the House.

5 pm

Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I shall distance myself a little from my rural hon. Friends, who find the legislation reprehensible. I have been in the House for five years, and no other piece of legislation has caused me greater pleasure. I have greeted no other legislation more willingly. It is entirely in keeping with a Conservative party which believes in wider home ownership and, above all, in practical forms of law. Our philosophy is not to believe that, in the 21st century, we should have 18th-century forms of tenure.
The Bill comes before the House with 270 Lords amendments. This afternoon and in the next months or indeed years, we cannot be fully aware of what those amendments will mean for the legislation. Therefore, I add my voice to those who hope that the Department of the Environment will officially monitor the Bill's progress over the coming years and conduct a proper review in two or three years' time. In that way, should the Bill prove to be unsatisfactory in giving the widest form of leasehold enfranchisement, the Government of the time will be able to widen it.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want to say how much I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). The Bill is a reprehensible piece of legislation which amounts to confiscation. If I freely enter into an agreement with someone, why should someone else have the right to say that that agreement was bad—irrespective of whether I entered into it or my parents, grandparents or great-grandparents did so?
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the honour bestowed on him in the recent honours list. It is thoroughly well deserved as he has a great knowledge of housing. However, I have made representations to him on the specific subject of the residency tests. As a chartered surveyor and property owner, I believe that it would be wrong if someone could enter into property ownership on the basis of speculation—whether they be a foreign-owned company or a foreign individual—so that they bought leasehold property with a view to making a profit out of the landlord.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—I want to be sure exactly what he is saying. The Government have always claimed that theirs is the party of leasehold enfranchisement. If that is so, it runs contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is saying that any contract entered into now or in the past should be enforced. He is saying that all previous leasehold enfranchisement legislation should not have been passed by the House. If I understand him correctly, his approach is at great variance with that of the Government Front-Bench team.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: All previous legislation has been freely debated in the House—much of it was passed by the Labour party. Had I been a Member of Parliament at that time I would have argued against it as hard as I could. Acts such as the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 are abhorrent.
I welcome the amendment. I do not think that it makes a bad Bill good, but it brings an element of fairness in abolishing some of the property speculation which would have been totally abhorrent.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Surely what is lamentable—a word which has been used over frequently in the past few minutes by some Conservative Members—is the idea that contracts on leasehold between tenant and leaseholder are based on an equal standard. It is impossible to obtain a freehold on flats, certainly in London. A freeholder holds all the cards in his or her hand, and has played those cards in a way that has had a deleterious effect on tenants.
Hon. Members have given examples of why someone should be able to be a tenant even if not currently resident in a leasehold flat. However, mention has not been made of the fact that, in the desperate recession which the country has been enduring in the past few years, families who have outgrown the size of their flats have had to move out of their homes to find a smaller place that they can afford and rent out their flats. The measure could make such families ineligible for enfranchisement.
I find it extraordinary that Conservative Members should put the housing needs of visiting business men, academics or diplomats above the needs of residents and nationals of this country, particularly in our capital city. The opportunities to obtain decent. affordable housing in this already overpressed capital are constantly decreasing. The Government have reneged on their manifesto commitments on leasehold enfranchisement. The House should vote against the measure, which does not work in the best interests of democracy and the commitment of political parties. It betrays the Government's manifesto. Most importantly, it betrays the thousands of people who are looking to the Bill to enable them to say that their home is their own.

Sir George Young: I thank the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and my right hon. and hon. Friends for their kind words on the recognition that I have recently received. In these meritocratic days, it is nice to have an appendage to my name that has been earned, not inherited.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West started by chiding the Government for accepting an amendment that would disfranchise leaseholders. He has just marched his hon. Friends—though not many of them—through the Lobby to do just that. He insisted on dividing the House on an amendment which, had it been carried, would have disfranchised a large number of leaseholders and taken away the rights that they hoped the legislation would afford them.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the vast majority of flats were owned by ordinary people who live in them. He is right. That partly answers the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I should be surprised if the residence tests had a major impact in his constituency or other constituencies on the south coast.
There is provision for enabling leaseholders who are temporarily in residence abroad to participate in enfranchisement. The leaseholders of retirement homes would not be able to be participating tenants until they had moved into and occupied the retirement homes. However, it would need only 50 per cent. of the remaining participating tenants in the block to be residential. The hurdle is a little higher, which is why the provision was welcomed by some of my hon. Friends.
We have been urged to keep the matter under review. We are setting up an advisory organisation to help leaseholders achieve their entitlements under the legislation. I have no doubt that that organisation and others will let the Government know of the legislation's progress. I would hesitate to commit myself or my successors to more legislation on the subject. It is difficult to think of any more difficult legislation to pilot through the House than legislation on leasehold reform. My reasons for saying that have become manifestly clear in the past minutes.
We have made no estimates of the numbers who might benefit from the Bill. The Government's role is to give people entitlements and rights. It is entirely a matter for them how they exercise those rights. Therefore, we have set no targets for enfranchisements.

Mr. Battle: We appreciate the Minister's difficulty to a large extent. He has promised us a review, but it would be better to get the legislation right from the outset. In the other place, the Minister said:
1 strongly believe that a residence condition for qualification for collective enfranchisement in flats would not be fair … it would substantially reduce the number of blocks in which collective enfranchisement could take place … In fact I am convinced that a residence test for participation in collective enfranchisement would render unworkable this part of the Bill … We would end up with a worthless, discredited piece of legislation and our declared policy would not be delivered."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 1993, Vol. 543, c. 954–55 ]
Is that not Government policy? Is not the Minister saying that the Bill will not deliver the Government's intentions?

Sir George Young: I hope to come in a moment to the particular residency test that we are introducing, which, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, is substantially different from some of the earlier tests that were put before this House and another place. My own view is that the new residency test will not substantially disfranchise a large number of people. As has been said, flat owners move frequently, but only half of the participating tenants have to satisfy the test. Further, it is a 12-month rather than a three-year test, for precisely that reason.
In reply to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) I shall simply repeat what Lord Williams of Elvel said in another place on behalf of the Labour party:
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that our reaction to the amendment is that we agree with anything which is against absentee landlords and artificial persons but as regards residents, we have had our doubts about 'the last twelve months'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 1993; Vol. 545, c. 1259.]
So, in another place, there was some support for the insertion of a residency test before enfranchisement becomes possible.
I should like to turn now to the heart of the reservations raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. My right hon. and learned


Friend the Home Secretary, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, said that we did accept that there is some logic in the argument that only long leaseholders who actually live in their flats should be able to take control of the building and do something about the inevitable decline in the value of their asset, but we foresaw difficulty with the practicalities.
Our view was that a residence test for collective enfranchisement which disqualified either buildings or individual tenants would mean that in too many blocks the right of tenants to buy out their landlords would not be exercisable, so the overall policy could not be achieved. We did not apply that argument to individual lease renewal, about which there has been no debate this afternoon.
Our original objection to a residence test was that the requisite majority of tenants to trigger collective enfranchisement would, in practice, be hard to attain. That is because the turnover of lease ownership means that at any one time a significant proportion of long leaseholders in a block would not have lived in it long enough to become qualifying tenants. Further, individual blocks could move into and out of eligibility frequently, making it harder to find an opportunity to claim.
In another place, my noble Friend Lord Boardman found a way round this difficulty. His amendment, which was accepted in another place and is before the House today, applies a test to participating tenants only. It requires that not fewer than half of those who sign the initial notice meet the residence condition. Thus, the difficulty over the disqualification from enfranchisement of whole blocks of flats, because not enough of the leaseholders have lived in their flats for long enough to allow the number of qualifying tenants to pass the two-thirds threshold, is neatly bypassed.
The residence conditions differ somewhat from those that we have introduced for lease renewal, because of the different circumstances. There are alternative tests. First, there is occupation of the flat, or part of it, as an only or principal home for the preceding 12 months. Secondly, occupation for periods amounting to three years out of the last 10 will suffice. Tenants may choose what for them is the easier. The second limb of the test means that people who have recently let out their flats—for example, because they have gone abroad for a period—will not be denied the opportunity to join in collective enfranchisement. Occupation does not have to have been under the qualifying lease. Thus, for example, someone who has lived in a flat owned by his or her parents and has recently inherited the long lease will be able to participate.
These amendments represent a sensible compromise between two conflicting points of view, both of which have been expressed in this debate. They will not disfranchise many blocks, but, as I said earlier, they will exercise the spectre of control by an absent minority. Politics is the art of the possible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North said, compromise is sometimes necessary. In my view, these amendments represent an acceptable compromise.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 7

LEASES AT A LOW RENT

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, leave out lines 20 to 25 and insert—

("(b) where—

(i) the lease was entered into either on or after 1st April 1963 but before 1st April 1990, or on or after 1st April 1990 in pursuance of a contract made before that date, and

(ii) the flat had a rateable value at the date of the commencement of the lease or else at any time before 1st April 1990,")

Sir George Young: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 88.

Sir George Young: These amendments will ensure that where a property never acquires a rateable value it shall be treated as if it were a lease entered into after April 1990. The test that applies to these leases is that the ground rent must not exceed £1,000 in Greater London or £250 elsewhere.
Amendment No. 10 relates to flats, and amendment No. 88 deals with houses. They will improve the test by ensuring that it can be applied to all properties, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Battle: The language in which the Minister presents his case is interesting. He says that the amendment will improve the test. In other words, it will firm up the test and make it more difficult for people to get through. Thus, the Government are once again ensuring that fewer people than was suggested will be enfranchised. It is worth recalling that the original consultation document published by the Government contained no suggestion of any low rent test. Such a test has crept in via the Bill, and the Government are now accepting it, as it were, as law. The Minister's comment that he is improving or strengthening the test suggests to me that very many more people will be disfranchised.

Sir George Young: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away, let me make the point that the amendments were put forward on behalf of leaseholders. Without them, certain properties would simply be ineligible for enfranchisement because they have no rateable value. The amendments will therefore benefit leaseholders.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 17

RIGHT OF REVERSIONER TO REQUIRE EVIDENCE OF TENANT'S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 23, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

("(3) Where—

(a) the nominee purchaser fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) in the case of any person within the period mentioned in subsection (2), and

(b) The initial notice would not have been given in accordance with section I 1(2)(b) if—

(i) that person, and

(ii) any other person in the case of whom a like failure by the nominee purchaser has occurred.

had been neither included among the persons who gave the notice nor included among the qualifying tenants of the flats referred to in that provision, the initial notice shall be deemed to have been withdrawn at the end of that period.")

Mr. Baldry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is technical. It deals with the issue of deemed withdrawal of the initial notice where the nominee purchaser cannot deduce title to the property of any participating tenant. Without the amendment, failure to deduce the title of the lease of any participating tenant would cause the deemed withdrawal of the initial notice, which might prove rather harsh.
The amendment was proposed by the Law Society and the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee. It seems to make sense. It makes the procedures on enfranchisement fairer.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 88 agreed to.

Clause 62

PRICE PAYABLE BY TENANT ON ENFRANCHISEMENT BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 59 OR 60

Lords amendment proposed: No. 89, in page 65, line 17, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 18 and insert

("be determined in accordance with subsection (IA) above; but in any such case—

(a) if in determining the price so payable there falls to be taken into account any marriage value arising by virtue of the coalescence of the freehold and leasehold interests, the share of the marriage value to which the tenant is to be regarded as being entitled shall not exceed one-half of it; and

(b) section 9A below has effect for determining whether any additional amount is payable by way of compensation under that section;

and in a case where the provision (or one of the provisions) by virtue of which the right to acquire the freehold arises in section 1A(1) above, subsection (1A) above shall apply with the omission of the assumption set out in paragraph (b) of that subsection."")

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 90 and 265.

Mr. Pike: We want to break the run and have a debate on this group of amendments, which cover important issues.
The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association and the Consumers Association are concerned about the part of the Bill affected by the amendments, and we must force the Government to explain exactly why the amendments should be accepted. We do not think that amendments Nos. 89 and 265 are necessary, but the Government may be able to convince us differently about amendment No. 90.
We have discussed the extension of rights of leasehold
house owners and flat owners. The Bill updates previous legislation, especially the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made his position clear, but I am sure that

the Government would not like to oppose leasehold enfranchisement. When the hon. Gentleman made his maiden speech, I said that I hope that he would be an improvement on his predecessor, who held strong views on some issues. I hope that the view that he has expressed in this debate is not typical, because we strongly disagree with it and the Government have a different view on the way to proceed with leasehold enfranchisement.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not opposed to hon. Members having strong views. One can hold strong views and still support one's Government. I oppose the leasehold enfranchisement in part I of the Bill, but I strongly support parts II and III.

Mr. Pike: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. However, the Conservative party's election manifesto contained a clear commitment to extend leasehold enfranchisement. The hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, and I accept that he is entitled to do so. However, I hope that he made his electors aware of the fact that he did not agree with his party on that issue.
Amendment No. 89 seems to put more restrictions on house owners than the Bill intends. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury thinks that that is an improvement, but we have considerable reservations. Under the Bill as drafted, benefits to house owners are limited and do not give them any right to lease extensions, which people enfranchised under the 1967 Act have, and which flat owners will have under the new legislation.
Since the Bill left the House, Ministers have made a series of concessions to its opponents, and they tend to penalise an already disadvantaged group of leaseholders. The leaseholders who are affected will have to pay for enfranchisement under the more costly of the two formulae in the 1967 Act. The Bill has been amended by the other place to make the formula even more disadvantageous for leasehold house owners.
First, there will be a 50 per cent. minimum share of marriage value. That does not apply in other parts of the Bill. Secondly, severance costs must be paid, and that does not apply to other people covered by the Bill. Thirdly, the assumption that the tenant has any right to remain in the building at the end of the lease is removed, thus further increasing the price that is payable.
The amendments would give leasehold house owners the worst of all worlds. They certainly gain fewer rights at higher cost than other groups. I share their view that they have been singled out as sacrificial victims to appease the landlord lobby in the other place. That is why it is right to debate these important issues.
The points that I have been making were mainly those of the Consumers Association and I shall now deal with what the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association says about amendments Nos. 89 and 262:
Amendment Number 89 … if allowed to stand—would effectively deny enfranchisement rights to virtually all long-term house-leaseholders. We feel … that the minority of house-leaseholders becoming eligible under this legislation have been used as a sacrifice for other parts of the Bill.
The Government have tried to hold firm against strong opposition. We all know what happened to the Duke of Westminster as a result of the legislation. The Government were under strong pressure and felt that they had to make a concession to get people to go along with the main drift of the Bill on enfranchisement of flats and not destroy it beyond recognition.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, we debated at great length the low rent test and other measures that are unnecessarily restrictive and do not give the freedom to buy that people should enjoy. Some people think that the Bill goes too far, and in the other place there were moves to restrict it even further. It is our view and that of others, particularly those affected, that, to ensure that this part of the Bill was not completely destroyed, the Government made the concession on house owners. That was the wrong decision to take. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the concern that is expressed about Lords amendment No. 89.
The first part of the amendment deals with the marriage value and the second with the removal from the valuation calculations of the assumption that the tenant has a right to occupancy at the end of the lease. Those are both important factors, and their removal will make the Bill worse than the one that left the House of Commons a few months ago.
The special valuation base defined in the Leasehold Reform Act, as amended in 1974, has been operating for 20 years as the established formula for assessment of the cost of enfranchisement for houses, and there is now a large body of case law. From the first, the Government have repeatedly stated that houses brought into eligibility for enfranchisement by the reform would be valued on the same basis as those previously made eligible. The Minister has assured us of that at several stages in Committee and on Report.
The 1974 formula is already heavily loaded against the leaseholder because of the unequal professional representation in early cases. The first case, the landmark Norfolk case, where the tenant represented himself against the landlord represented by Nigel Hague QC, now a judge and the author of the standard work on the subject, and the Grosvenor Estates' long-time solicitors Boodle Hatfield, resulted in a precedent award of 275 per cent. in the profit to the landlord. That was the old issue of profit and value and the old difficulty of assessing what the value should be as a result of the apportionment and the concept of marriage value, which we have debated so much in our consideration of the Bill.
The concept of marriage value has arisen out of the Leasehold Reform Act, but no set provision was made for it in the 1974 formula, and its apportionment has been a matter of negotiation, although 50 per cent. to each party has been the normal division. The new amendment will mean that the landlord must receive at least half the marriage value. That underlines the bottom point below which one cannot go. In that respect, there is a reduction in the rights of, and in the justice that should be done to, the person applying to buy the freehold of the property.
There is then the removal of the assumption of right for security of tenure—another important issue. The 1974 formula contains the assumption that the occupying leaseholder has a right to tenancy at the end of his lease. In some cases that will happen, but in others it will not, but a legal assumption of that sort follows frequently used legal practice. It is an extremely important principle in the way in which the value of the property is assumed and arrived at. Lords amendment No. 89 will remove the assumption of security of tenure at the end of the lease.
Houses will be valued in an arbitrary way, according to whether, by chance, that right is there. We believe that to be an unfair change.
The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association considers that market value as a basis for the assessing of cost of enfranchisement can be acceptable only when modified by recognition of the moral right of the occupying home owner. I hope that the Government are prepared to recognise that right, which should not be ignored. It is established by an important principle that has existed for a long time and is understood, but will be removed by the amendment.
5.45 pm
Never before in the history of leasehold enfranchisement have assessments of costs been worked out on the basis that the resident home owner has no right, moral or otherwise, to security of tenure at the end of his lease, and the resulting figures could prove impossible for most leaseholders, particularly long-term leaseholders whose lease terms are now short as a result of the years that they have been in the property.
Most larger houses were not given Rent Act protection in 1954, because they were not considered to be in short supply, but that was because many were still in various degrees of dilapidation or dereliction after the war, and conditions were still such that people had to have courage to take them on and restore them. The situation is different now, a number of years on, and that is an extremely important point.
As to the lease extension rights for house leaseholders, a 50-year extension of lease was an alternative option for qualifying leaseholders under previous legislation, but again, that right will be removed by the Bill. That was done quite openly from the beginning, as is shown by the Government's early proposals. It was hoped that an amendment would be tabled that might restore the right, and we certainly debated many of the issues. However, when taken with Lords amendment No. 89, not only will there be no improvement in the position of house-leaseholders, but their situation will be worsened.
I do not believe that that is what the Government intended to do, but as we, the Consumers Association and the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association view it, that is the reality. If the Government do not change their mind, they will have to be prepared to be told that they got it wrong. The move would be discrimination against a minority group of house leaseholders who were not previously eligible for enfranchisement, who were discriminated against in 1967 and again in 1974 by being denied rights given to other similar leaseholders.
I have always said, in good faith, that the Government's intention was to get rid of leasehold as a form of tenure. They have said both that, and that it must be done on a basis of equity and fairness rather than through seizure, which is what some Tory Back Benchers have claimed. We accept that it must be done on a fair basis. I hope that the Minister will accept our view that, no doubt inadvertently, something done in the other House is taking us backwards. We do not want that. The Government should not be asking us to agree to Lords amendments Nos. 89 and 265.
I should like to press the Minister a bit further on injurious affection and the changes to that which will result from Lords amendment No. 90. As the amendments were moved formally, we have not heard exactly why amendment No. 90 is considered necessary. The Leasehold
Enfranchisement Association is not fully convinced, although it might find the amendment acceptable if the Government stated clearly that they did not intend injurious affection to apply to urban houses.
We may, of course, be wrong in assuming that those speaking on behalf of rural interests are too inclined to talk engagingly of dower houses and long leaseholds This, however, is almost entirely an urban problem; dower houses are not an issue. It is understood that the Government do not intend injurious affection to have any practical application to urban houses, but the agents of a major London landlord are already reported to have spoken of "crippling loadings" in respect of the first household to attempt enfranchisement.
People outside are worried about what may be done to prevent enfranchisement and extensions; they are concerned about the interpretation of certain provisions. The Minister is in the legal profession, and will know—as we all do—that skilful lawyers spend a good deal of time trying to find loopholes in legislation. I am no supporter of the Government, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt: even they may not want the legislation to be interpreted as it will be interpreted by some devious, scheming lawyers who see an opportunity to make money by protecting dukes who do not want leaseholders to have the chance of enfranchisement or extensions.
Unless the Minister can convince us that our fears are unjustified, we intend to press amendment No. 89 to a Division; if it falls, amendment No. 265 will automatically fall with it. As for amendment No. 90, I wish to hear what the Minister has to say, and, if necessary, to seek the House's permission to speak later. We are not sure what the Government intend; if we receive the assurances that we and the people seek about its interpretation, we may be prepared to let it pass. However, we are nearing the final debate on enfranchisement and extensions.
The Government are finding it difficult to convince some of their own Back Benchers of the equity of their proposals, and many Conservative Members support the Opposition's views. The Minister must do some convincing if we are not to press amendment No. 89 to a Division, because we believe that it would worsen the position of house owners.

Mr. Fishburn: The many leaseholders who live in London, and who live in houses rather than flats, feel cruelly let down by this aspect of the legislation. They do not feel let down by what was done on Second Reading, in Committee or on Third Reading; they feel let down by amendments Nos. 89 and 90, which were added in another place, without warning, despite the months—indeed, years —of debate on leasehold reform.
That debate began in a number of inner-London constituencies, under the aegis of my predecessor, Brandon Rhys Williams. The aim was precisely to enfrachise leaseholders who owned houses rather than flats. In the intervening years—quite properly—legislation has been introduced to enfranchise flat owners: that will change the face of London dramatically for the better over the next 10 years or so. It will give the right to own their flats to people who are now trapped in a second-rate form of home-ownership, with dwindling leasehold rights.
But lo and behold! Because of these amendments, those who originally crusaded for leasehold enfranchisement will be left out in the cold. The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 allowed house owners—people who owned individual

houses on leasehold—to enfranchise themselves, under a formula set out in the Act. As the Bill was going through the House, at the last minute a certain number of householders were artificially excluded in a deal between the Labour Government, as they then were, and the big London landlords, as they then were and still are. Anyone whose house had a rateable value of more than i1,500 a year was artificially excluded from the legislation.
Until these amendments were agreed in another place, it was the Government's intention, and the hope of tens of thousands of Londoners who live in leasehold houses, that enfranchisement would be possible on the terms that the 1967 Act would have allowed had it not been for that artificial exclusion. Many of those Londoners are my constituents.
London as a whole was right to look forward to such a possibility: as we have seen in the past, leaseholders who enfranchise themselves and become freeholders rapidly improve their houses, bringing about new investment and improving neighbourhood amenities and architectural features. Certainly, all the houses in my constituency of Kensington whose owners have enfranchised themselves in the past 10 or 15 years have added enormously to the quality of the area, by virtue of the fact that those who live in them also own them. Now, thousands will not be able to enfranchise themselves because the rateable value of their homes is more than £1,500. That will lead to continuing urban squalor—and, I fear, growing urban squalor in my part of the world.
Amendment No. 89 effectively disfranchises those thousands of people, for two reasons. First, there is now a provision on the face of the Bill that no leaseholder in a London house should be able to expect more than half the marriage value of the property if he wishes to enfranchise. That effectively means that the cost of enfranchisement will be vastly more than it would have been under the 1967 Act. We may be talking of not a fraction, but a quantum leap of two, three or four times the actual cost.
Such a provision has never been on the face of the Bill before. We know that it was put there to buy off a well-mounted public relations campaign in another place, not because it was the Government's original intention.
My fear, to which I should like the Minister to respond, is that the lawyers who will fix at tribunals the price of houses to be enfranchised will take the amendment merely as a starting point. Instead of the marriage value not exceeding 50 per cent., leaseholders who seek to enfranchise will have to pay more than 70, 80 or 85 per cent. of the marriage value when they buy the freehold from the residual freeholder, who has already received much of the property's worth when he sold the long lease in the first place.
The second reason also stems from amendment No. 89. When the tribunal seeks to ascertain the worth of a house that a leaseholder wishes to enfranchise, it will assume that the house will be empty at the end of the lease, with no statutory tenancy and no moral right of residence. That provision, tacked on to amendment No. 89, overturns the rule of thumb, indeed the rule of law, that we have come to expect in housing in the previous generation. It does so not only as a last-minute thought but with extraordinary high-handedness.
6 pm
Taken together, these two reasons mean that thousands of Londoners with leasehold properties will not be able to take advantage of the Bill's provisions to buy their freeholds. That is a great shame, which will be keenly felt by many of my constituents. Anything that the Minister could say now to dispel the fear that tribunals will use the amendment to increase the cost to those seeking enfranchisement will be greatly welcomed.
Amendment No. 90 contains the legal jargon of injurious affection. That concept was agreed in this House rather than in another place, but it was intended to apply to country estates and, in that context, I regard it as a welcome and sensible move and exactly the type of amendment that legislation should receive as it passes through this House. It was a sharpening and an improvement, but, in the brief six weeks since the commitment was given, the lawyers have been at work. They say that they will use amendment No. 90 to ensure that the enfranchisement of houses on contiguous estates throughout London, and Kensington, will be stymied. They will claim injurious affection and state that something which was a sensible concession to country estates should apply in the heart of our capital city. Anything that the Minister can say to rebut not me but those lawyers will be greatly appreciated.
If amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are passed and if we receive none of the assurances that I seek, thousands of my constituents will feel greatly let down after a long campaign, and leaseholders of houses in central London will not be able to enfranchise.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) is right to express alarm and concern about the implications of the amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) rightly said, they will damage the prospects of substantial numbers of leaseholders of houses who were among the few who did not benefit from the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and who looked forward to enfranchisement on similar terms to those that applied to leaseholders under that Act.
As has been said, there was no hint in earlier debates in the House or in Committee that a proposal such as that embodied in these amendments would be incorporated in the Bill. Indeed, to my knowledge, the Government have given no justification for the introduction of these concepts, extending to the provisions of the 1967 Act the concepts of the marriage value and compensation, or injurious affection, which were devised by the Government for the rather different conditions applying to flats and which were the basis of this legislation. There is no common sense, logic or justification in applying the two concepts of marriage value and compensation, or injurious affection, to houses. The consequences of doing so will be dramatic and devastating to many leaseholders.
Let us consider the practical implications of amendment No. 90, which deals with compensation. It states that the freeholder may claim compensation for
 "such amount as is reasonable"—
there is no limit; it is a wholly open-ended phrase—
to compensate him for that loss or damage.
Such loss or damage means
any diminution in value of any interest"—
again, an open-ended phrase—
of the landlord in other property"—
not only in the one property but any other property—

resulting from the acquisition of his interest in the house and premises".
The amendment goes very wide and will allow any landlord trying to frustrate the wishes of a leaseholder seeking to enfranchise to use the services of a skilful lawyer to put a major obstacle in the way of the leaseholder, as the hon. Member for Kensington said.
However, that is not the end of it. The amendment also states that loss or damage shall mean
any other loss or damage which results therefrom to the extent that it is referable to his ownership of any interest in other property.
They are extraordinarily wide concepts, which will allow leaseholders to be confronted by lawyers demanding substantial sums in compensation, relating to various claims which may or may not be justified.
I accept that there may be consequences for landlords who are used to managing a block of flats if some properties within that block are enfranchised. There could be knock-on consequences for the management of the block, but houses are self-contained dwellings, which is an entirely different matter. They should not be subject to the curious concept of compensation.
The amendment is very broad, and the broadest of all the elements, and that which I believe will be the most damaging, at least in London, is the provision relating to the loss of development value. The Bill incorporates not only the curious concept of payment for such amount as the landlord believes is owing to him as compensation because of enfranchisement but the explicit provision that loss shall include the loss of development value. It is defined as value
attributable to the possibility of demolishing, reconstructing, or carrying out substantial works of construction
on the property.
One can envisage a landlord, faced with a leaseholder seeking enfranchisement, saying that, if he could develop a particular property, he could replace it with a substantially more valuable one on the same site. The amendment contains no requirement that the landlord should have obtained planning consent for such development. It is sufficient for the landlord to claim merely that he might have had an opportunity to develop a property and thereby greatly enhance its value. The hypothetical loss of development value could then be charged to the leaseholder seeking enfranchisement, thus making it impossible for the leaseholder to exercise the right of enfranchisement.
Those serious implications go the the heart of the process of enfranchisement. Ministers must be only too well aware that the amendments would make it impossible for certain leaseholders in houses to exercise their rights. Leaseholders would be confronted not only with the obstancles that we already know exist in the Bill but with a powerful financial deterrent that their landlord can exercise against them.
It seems extraordinary, given Ministers' protestations about their wish to extend enfrachisement, that, under the amendments, they are deliberately seeking to place serious obstacles in the path of those seeking enfranchisement.
I do not know what justification Ministers will advance. We may be told that it is neat and tidy to apply the same concepts to houses as those that apply to flats. That is the only respectable argument that I can think of, because I have heard no other argument in favour of those provisions.
In Committee, we argued time and again for consistency between the eligibility criteria for people seeking enfranchisement under the Bill and the eligibility criteria of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Time and again, Ministers told us that the circumstances were different and that the 1987 Act did not apply in the same circumstances as the proposals in the Bill and, therefore, it was not appropriate to have absolute consistency in the rules. By their own arguments in Committee, they have destroyed any possible case for introducing the two amendments, which would have such a damaging impact on leaseholders in houses.
The case against amendments Nos. 89 and 265 is overwhelming and I should be surprised if Ministers could advance any convincing arguments in their favour. I hope that they will have the decency to recognise that a serious mistake has been made in the other place and that the amendments should be negatived to ensure that leaseholders in houses are not prevented from taking the opportunities for enfranchisement that Parliament is ostensibly seeking to grant.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to detain the House for a minute or two longer on amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 265. I had not intended to speak, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) made some points that should not go unanswered.
Amendments Nos. 89 and 265 deal with marriage value —when the lessor and lessee's interests are put together and the value of the whole is greater than that of the two parts. Both hon. Members should recognise what is happening in the market. At the moment, if a lessee went to his landlord, the lessor, wishing to buy his interesi out, the landlord, if he were so minded, would agree, and I, as a chartered surveyor, would have no difficulty in valuing the unexpired portion of the lease. They would then negotiate the marriage value and what portion of the property should go to the lessee and what portion should go to the lessor.
6.15 pm
In the present market, almost universally, 75 per cent. or more of the marriage value goes to the lessor. As we are introducing legislation to allow the lessee, in certain prescribed circumstances, to oblige the landlord, the lessor, to allow himself to be bought out, it seems quite reasonable that should there be a minimum of 50 per cent.— after all, that is some way below what happens in the market.
Amendment No. 90 deals with injurious affection. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) did not have a clue what the words meant, let alone what he was speaking to, so let me try to explain. It is a universal principle of all compensation law that where somebody's property is acquired compulsorily, there should be full compensation for the injurious affection—the diminution in the landlord's remaining property. The hon. Member for Greenwich read out the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which do not differ from other statutory provisions on compensation. It is wholly consistent with all other property law.

Mr. Raynsford: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such concept in the 1967 Act, which has worked perfectly well and successfully for 25 years or more? An entirely alien concept is now being introduced.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has played into my hands. I told the hon. Member for Burnley that, had I been here in 1967, I would have argued as hard as I could to ensure that that legislation was defeated. It was a totally unfair Act.
In those circumstances, consistent with all other property legislation where the landlord's property has been diminished, the Bill should make proper provision for injurious affection. That applies particularly to rural estates and where an estate village, in unique and rare cases, has been in the ownership of the same family since Domesday. This is part of our cultural heritage.

Mr. Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that this is part of our heritage. That may or may not be so, but is not his real concern that it is part of his wealth?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is casting a personal aspersion on me, he should withdraw it. If he is casting an aspersion on landowners in general, perhaps he will make himself clear.

Mr. Straw: I was referring to both—the hon. Gentleman's landholding, the landholding of other owners and the way in which they have sought unjustifiably to influence the outcome of the Bill.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Member for Bolton—

Mr. Straw: Blackburn.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is casting personal aspersions against me, I should say that I have declared an interest as a chartered surveyor and a landowner. I do not believe, however, that any of my property holdings come within the scope of the Bill. If he is casting personal aspersions against me, he should withdraw them, but if he is casting aspersions against property owners in general, I should tell him that many hundreds of thousands of property owners are lessors, some of whom have only two properties.
I know that almost all the investments of one hon. Member are in one leasehold property, which will now be enfranchised. [ Laughter.] The hon. Member for Blackburn may laugh, but I do not understand why the Labour party wants to make legislation that inhibits privity of contract. I cannot understand why it does not want anybody who makes a free agreement to do whatever he or she wants.

Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously advancing the proposition that contracts should be exclusively the domain of those who are parties to them and that the community should have no interest in their outcome, even if it affects the community?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Of course, there will be circumstances where the community has an interest, but this is not one of them.
I have already been lured into making remarks well outside the scope of the amendments. That is not entirely and exclusively my fault. I have been led down a path of temptation that I could not resist.
It is wholly right, and consistent with other property legislation, that where a property owner's interest is acquired, as it were, compulsorily, he should be compensated for the full diminution in the value of his property.
Does the hon. Member for Greenwich think that it would be right for a landlord with potential investment value to have his property acquired compulsorily and get nothing from the potential investment? If that is what he is saying, it is totally unfair.

Mr. John Fraser: My constituency contains a large number of leasehold properties, including some parts of the Dulwich college estate. I have fought all my parliamentary life for better rights for leaseholders, and I was proud to be associated with the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Of course, that Act was opposed by the then Conservative Opposition, and was described by John Boyd-Carpenter as "Rachmanism in reverse." The spirit of Boyd-Carpenter lives on on the Government Benches.
The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) argues that we shall be messing with privity of contract. But one of the reasons why Parliament exists is to disturb, in the interests of justice and fairness, arrangements between one party and another which, very often, have resulted from unequal bargaining power. It is perfectly proper for Parliament to intervene to give security of tenure—that is interfering with privity of contract.
No business man or woman on the Government Benches protests against the interference with privity of contract when the security of business people is involved. They protest only when residential tenants—usually those at the bottom of the scale—are involved. There is every reason why hon. Members should try to interfere with privity of contract. That is the intention of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
I now turn to marriage value. When the 1967 Act was introduced, it was not thought that marriage value would enter into it; the price paid by the tenant would be the price on the open market. Let us transfer the principle of marriage value to the example of a severely ill person going to a chemist to have a prescription dispensed. The transferred principle would mean that the chemist would charge the sick person a greater amount of money because he was in greater need of the prescription than someone else in the marketplace. The same principle would apply to a private doctor charging a higher fee to someone who was seriously ill and needed to be seen than to other patients. It would mean charging more for a meal to someone who was starving than to other people. That is marriage value.
The reason for leasehold reform legislation was to deal with the exploitation of tenants, usually people whose home—their most important possession—was dependent on the absence of their rights under leasehold law. That is why there was interference on these matters, and why the 1967 Act assumed that there was no such thing as marriage value.
Marriage value is demanding with menaces—I am told I must not use the word "blackmail" any longer, as it is politically incorrect--from people who arc in the greatest need. That is why marriage values should not apply either to houses or to flats. I can see that there is a problem with regard to flats when a few people extend the leases and there is not general enfranchisement. There is a trade-off in those circumstances.
The amendments make things much worse by placing the matter compulsorily on the agenda for negotiation by saying that the tenant may not have more than half the

value. That seems to be influencing the negotiations in a way that was not intended either by those who have campaigned for the legislation or by the Government when they introduced the Bill in the first place.
I wish to talk briefly about injurious affection, which is a principle acknowledged in compensation law. I believe that landlords are now behaving in a way that was not thought to be normal behaviour for landlords some years ago. I have been surprised at the behaviour of Dulwich college—a charity—over the past few years. The college used to behave in a benign and neighbourly way. There was a sort of give and take, and the college seemed to take a charitable view of the needs of leaseholders. In the past few years, the attitude has changed in the same way as it has with institutional landlords.
In some cases, those landlords demand the very last penny that they can get out of their tenants, whether they are business or residential. There is row after row of empty shops and premises in and around my constituency because of the high rents now being demanded by Dulwich college. If I take what I can see around my constituency as an indicator of how the college would use injurious affection, I can only conclude that it will be a very injurious affection, not for the college but for those who seek to exercise the rights given by Parliament.
I am deeply disturbed by and unhappy with the amendments. They were not intended in the first place by the Government and they entrench—particularly with regard to marriage value—the principle of being able to demand more from those who are in need than from those trading in the normal marketplace. I hope that, even at such a late hour, the Government will change their minds.

Mr. Baldry: I hope that I can reassure the House. When moving the motion, I did not appreciate that the amendment had provoked such passion outside the House. If that had been made clear to me, I would have explained the amendments in greater detail, because a number of comments that we have heard have been somewhat wide of the mark. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said that the Opposition intend to press for a Division, and I suspect that very little of what I am to say will deter them from that intention.
I shall try to explain what the matter is about. First, the amendments specify that a landlord should receive at least half of any marriage value. I accept the assertion by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that marriage values were not in the 1967 Act. The legislation on houses was different, because high-value houses were excluded from the 1967 Act and are included in this legislation for the first time. That is why, in part, we have marriage values, and they were debated at length in Standing Committee. The Government take the view that it is fair that the marriage value should be shared. If other hon. Members do not consider it fair, of course they will vote accordingly. We believe that it is fair, and it will normally be applied equally between parties. This floor is a useful safeguard where there may not be a willing seller.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister conceded that the concept of marriage value was not regarded as appropriate in the 1967 Act. The distinction that he drew was between the provisions in the 1967 Act and the current extension to high-value properties. Will he tell the House what the logic is for having marriage value applying to high-value houses but not to low-value houses?

Mr. Baldry: There are two changes in the proposals —first, relating to flats and, secondly, relating to high-value houses. in those circumstances, time has moved on and it would be fair and equitable for marriage value to apply to high-value houses and to flats. The background to the 1967 Act was somewhat different from the background to the current proposals. Another difference between the Bill and the 1967 Act in the current proposals is embodied in the amendment relating to compensation for the severance price. The House has heard some fairly extreme examples of what might happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) should recall that the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced on Report that severance would be available for newly enfranchised houses. My hon. Friend will recall that that was because of a number of Back-Bench concerns about valuation.
The amendment arises because there are circumstances in which a real loss in the value of property remaining in a landlord's ownership may occur because of the disposal by enfranchisement. Again, we are dealing with high-value houses. The situation is unlikely to occur with low-value houses. Severance was not provided for in the 1967 Act and was unlikely to be appropriate for low-value houses. The impact of the loss on higher-value houses on a whole estate might be significant. The hon. Member for Burnley gave the good example of a dower house on a country estate, where an island of property under different ownership might be created.
The concerns that that rule somehow might apply in urban situations and that landlords might use that as preventing enfranchisement are somewhat wide of the mark. First, the landlord must satisfy a leasehold valuation tribunal that there is a real loss to some other property in his ownership. A landlord cannot simply add a penalty. He will have to show that some other third party would actually pay less for the other property, separately, than for the combined property. That seems to be only fair and equitable.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) cannot have it both ways. If he argues that there is no loss to the landlord, the amendment does no harm. However, if there are cases where there may be a loss to the landlord, it is only right that there should be compensation and that the landlord should have the opportunity of arguing, the point before a leasehold valuation tribunal.
6.30 pm
Amendment No. 265 disapplies the assumption that tenants will have security of tenure at the end of their leases. Tenants of higher-value houses, which will now be able to be enfranchised, do not normally have security of tenure. Indeed, the assumption, if that were allowed to continue, would artificially decrease the value of the landlord's interest. Where the tenant has the right, amendment No. 265 will not affect the valuation. The amendment simply reflects the truth. The facts speak for themselves. I cannot see how one can object to a situation where the facts speak for themselves. We are fairly reflecting the truth of the situation.

Mr. Pike: As a result of amendments Nos. 89 and 265, will not the householder enjoy a worse position?

Mr. Baldry: Parts of this afternoon's debate have tended, on both sides of the House, to become a spat, or a scoreboard with tenants on one side and landlords on the

other. That is not how we on the Treasury Bench view the Bill. We want legislation that is fair and equitable to all parties in all regards. I believe that amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 265 are useful to ensure that the valuation of newly enfranchisable houses is equitable and in line with that for flats. For those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Battle: The Minister has revealed a further example of the Government effectively caving in to the pressure of the landlord's interests which was placed on the Government in another place. That is what it boils down to.
I remind the Minister of one letter of the many that I have received which was addressed to the Minister. It states:
I understand that the above mentioned bill will go next Monday back to the House of Commons.
I strongly hope that the Government will reject in the House of Commons the amendments No. 89 and 90 proposed by the House of Lords in particular;
a) injurious affection (loss which might be incurred to a landlord other property by enfranchisement of a particular house)
b) removal of the assumption of right to security of tenure
c) apportion of marriage value
All these amendments have been clearly proposed in the House of Lords for the exclusive benefit of the Landlords with the effect of making the enfranchisement process for houses extremely expensive.
Already the 1974 formula which should apply, as in the Government manifesto, gives the landlord a very high compensation, adding these further 3 new factors would be punitive for the tenant and against the entire scope of the legislation.
I was born in my present home and have lived there all my life and therefore very much hope that you will not adopt these three final amendments.
I believe that that person speaks for many people who expect to get leasehold enfranchisement, but who now realise that, with the Government's acceptance of amendments Nos. 89 and 90, that will not happen.
When Conservative Members push the Government even further by appealing to what we might describe as their version of the inviolability of the private contract, I submit to them, as many of my hon. Friends pointed out during the debate, that long lease contracts were never fair contracts because of the unreasonable assumption that the property "sold" or provided by the leaseholder would be handed back again for nothing, in perfect condition, at the end of the lease.
The lease periods concerned, sometimes 999 years, are also too long to be undertaken without a reasonable possibility of statutory change during that period. It is also possible for landlords to exact unfair contracts because of the local housing monopolies that they control. In other words, there was never any true freedom of choice for people entering such contracts if they wanted to live in a particular place. There is an inequality of bargaining power. In the leasehold area, private individuals seeking to buy a home via what is known as arm's-length negotiations are up against a scale of resources, both financial and professional, which makes any suggestion that it is an equal contract absolutely laughable.
Long-lease contracts were never fair. Unnatural property price inflation has escalated that imbalance. I suggest that landlords might have put their own house in order. However, they have not chosen to do that, and that is precisely why there is a demand for this legislation.
I refer the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to an article in The Times on 10 March 1993. In an editorial headed
Leasehold reform should not be opposed by Conservatives",
the article stated:
For Tories who believe in the sanctity of private contracts, therefore, the measure"—
the leasehold reform in the Bill
is a crypto-socialist attack on Locke's most sacred principles and an affront to the rule of law.
Appealing to these arguments may be to the defenders of the free market, the lordly rebels are being intransigent in their principled resistance. In practice, no society can afford to treat private contracts of private property as absolutely inviolable. In markets in which ownership is highly concentrated, governments rightly interfere with the untrammelled enjoyment of private property in the name of competition. Land ownership in central London has been a case of monopoly power, especially during the mid-Victorian period when Britain's system of long leasehold tenure became the norm.
For better or worse, the principle of forcing freeholders to sell their property to long leaseholders was established, by the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act. That law excluded flats, but only for reasons of administrative complexity. the new bill merely removes that anomaly. Parliament must ensure that the compensatory mechanism which accompanies it is just and carefully regulated.
With respect to the amendments, the Government are asking house lessees to pay the price and they are stepping back. In other words, the Government accept the need to tackle the anomaly in relation to flats, but they will do that at the expense of people with long leases on their houses. That is an unacceptable watering down of the Bill. In effect, the increasing cost of enfranchisement in relation to houses would be such that it could no longer be said that effective enfranchisement rights were being offered.
The three additional valuation factors to which we have referred in the debate—injurious affection, the removal of the assumption of the right to security of tenure and the
apportionment of marriage values—which have been loaded on to what house leaseholders will be made to pay on enfranchisement, seem to be grossly discriminatory. Householders, who were effectively excluded from the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, are now being discriminated against in the Bill.
It seems that the Bill has been retitled the "Leasehold Reform" Bill, but the effect of that has been to cover up the removal of enfranchisement rights. In practice, we have a weaker, shabby Bill that will not deliver to leaseholders the rights to which they think that they will be entitled. The way forward for the Government is not to accept the Lords amendments. In the long run, the way forward would be to accept our proposals on commonhold. I look forward to those proposals coming before the House. They are the real way forward, but I am worried that that might
not be on the agenda.
In the other place, Lord Strathclyde, speaking for the Government, said:
my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may or may not introduce that system in the future because it is fiendishly complicated and may require more thought"— [Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1993, Vol. 543, c. 1264.]
The Government have had plenty of time to bring forward a commonhold Bill. That would have cut through much of the morass into which the Government have dug themselves with the present proposals.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:-

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 181.

Division No. 295]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
 Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Aitken, Jonathan
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Alexander, Richard
Evans. Roger (Monmouth)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evennett, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Faber, David


Amess, David
Fabricant, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aspinwall, Jack
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
French, Douglas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gale, Roger


Bates, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Bellingham, Henry
Garnier. Edward


Bendall, Vivian
Gill, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodlad. Rt Hon Alastair


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Booth, Hartley
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway. Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague. William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton. Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam. Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Peter
Hawkins. Nick


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald. Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory. David


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry. Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell. Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs. Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Fit Hon Sir John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones. Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Key. Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King. Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, Sir David


Eggar, Tim
Kynoch. George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lawrence. Sir Ivan






Legg, Barry
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lidington, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lightbown, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Luff, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


Madel, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Mans, Keith
Spring, Richard


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Milligan, Stephen
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thomason, Roy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Waterson, Nigel


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Willetts, David


Redwood, John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Andrew MacKay.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Berry, Dr. Roger


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blair, Tony


Allen, Graham
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boyce, Jimmy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Austin-Walker, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cann, Jamie


Benton, Joe
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clapham, Michael





Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAllion, John


Coffey, Ann
McAvoy, Thomas


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
McFall, John


Corston, Ms Jean
McLeish, Henry


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mahon, Alice


Darling, Alistair
Mandelson, Peter


Davidson, Ian
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maxton, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Meacher, Michael


Denham, John
Michael, Alun


Dewar, Donald
Miller, Andrew


Dixon, Don
Morgan, Rhodri


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dowd, Jim
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mudie, George


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mullin, Chris


Eastham, Ken
Murphy, Paul


Enright, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Etherington, Bill
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
O'Hara, Edward


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pickthall, Colin


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pike, Peter L.


Fraser, John
Pope, Greg


Fyfe, Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Godsiff, Roger
Prescott, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Primarolo, Dawn


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Raynsford, Nick


Grocott, Bruce
Reid, Dr John


Gunnell, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hall, Mike
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hanson, David
Rooker, Jeff


Harvey, Nick
Rooney, Terry


Henderson, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Heppell, John
Salmond, Alex


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Short, Clare


Hoey, Kate
Skinner, Dennis


Hoon, Geoffrey
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Spellar, John


Hutton, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Illsley, Eric
Straw, Jack


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Turner, Dennis


Jamieson, David
Tyler, Paul


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Vaz, Keith


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Wardell Gareth (Gower)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)
Wareing, Robert N


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Watson, Mike


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wicks, Malcolm


Jowell, Tessa
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Keen, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Khabra, Piara S.
Worthington, Tony


Kilfoyle, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kirkwood, Archy



Leighton, Ron
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Alan Meale and


Litherland, Robert
Mr. Gordon McMaster.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Question accordingly agreed to

Lords amendment No. 89 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 90 and 91 agreed to.

New clause

PROPERTY TRANSFERRED FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT ETC.

Lords amendment proposed: No. 92, after clause 62 insert the following new clause—

("After section 32 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be inserted—

32A.—(1) A notice of a person's desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part shall be of no effect if at the relevant time the whole or any part of the the house and premises is qualifying property and either—

(a) the tenancy was created after the commencement of Chapter III of Part I of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; or
(b) (where the tenancy was created before that commencement) the tenant would not be entitled to have the freehold if either or both of sections 1A and 1B above were not in force.

(2) For the purposes of this section the whole or any part of the house and premises is qualifying property if—
(a) it has been designated under section 31(1)(b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (designation and undertakings relating to conditionally exempt transfers), whether with or without any other property, and no chargeable event has subsequently occurred with respect to it; or
(b) an application to the Board for it to be so designated is pending; or
(c) it is the property of a body not established or conducted for profit and a direction has been given in relation to it under section 26 of that Act (gifts for public benefit), whether with or without any other property; or
(d) an application to the Board for a direction to be so given in relation to it is pending.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above an application is pending as from the time when it is made to the Board until such time as it is either granted or refused by the Board or withdrawn by the applicant; and for this purpose an application shall not be regarded as made unless and until the applicant has submitted to the Board all such information in support of the application as is required by the Board.

(4) A notice of a person's desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part shall cease to have effect if—

(a) before completion of the conveyance in pursuance of the tenant's notice, the whole or any part of the house and premises becomes qualifying property; and
(b) the condition set out in subsection (1)(a) or (as the case may be) subsection (1)(b) above is satisfied.

(5) Where a tenant's notice ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (4) above—

(a) section 9(4) above shall not apply to require the tenant to make any payment to the landlord in respect of costs incurred by reason of the notice; and
(b) the person who applied or is applying for designation or a direction shall be liable to the tenant for all reasonable costs incurred by the tenant in connection with his claim to acquire the freehold of the house and premises.

(6) Where it is claimed that subsection (1) or (4) above applies in relation to a tenant's notice, the person making the claim shall, at the time of making it, furnish the tenant with evidence in support of it; and if he fails to do so he shall be liable for any costs which are reasonably incurred by the tenant in consequence of the failure.

(7) In subsection (2) above as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1) above—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to designation under section 34(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Finance Act 1975 or section 77(1)(b), (c) or (d) of the Finance Act 1976 as they apply to designation under section 31(1)(b),(c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; and
(b) paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to a direction under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 as they apply to a direction under section 26 of that Act of 1984.

(8) In this section—

"the Board" means the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;

"chargeable event" means
—

(a) any event which in accordance with any provision of Chapter II of Part II of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (exempt transfers) is a chargeable event, including any such provision as applied by section 78(3) of that Act (conditionally exempt occasions); or
(b) any event which would have been a chargeable event in the circumstances mentioned in section 79(3) of that Act (exemption from ten-yearly charge)."")

Read a Second time.

Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in subsection (7) leave out

'as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1) above'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments, Nos. 93 to 152 agreed to.

New clause

PROPERTY WITHIN CATHEDRAL BOUNDARY

Lords amendment proposed: No. 153, after clause 85 insert the following new clause—

(". There shall be no right under Chapter I or II to acquire any interest in or lease of any property which lies within the precinct boundary of a cathedral church, within the meaning of the Cathedrals Measure 1963.")

Read a Second time.

Amendment made to Lords amendment: (a), leave out from `which' to end and insert

'for the purposes of the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 is within the precinct of a cathedral church.'.—[Mr. Baldry.]

Lords amendment, as amended, ageed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 154 to 169 agreed to.

New clause

RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 170, after clause 110 insert the following new clause—

(". After subsection (2) of section 104 of the 1985 Act (provision of information about tenancies) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) A local authority which is the landlord under a secure tenancy shall supply the tenant, at least once in every relevant year, with a copy of such information relating to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(b) and (c) as was last published by it; and in this subsection 'relevant year' means any period of twelve months beginning with an anniversary of the date of such publication."")

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[ Sir George Young.]

7 pm

Mr. Battle: The amendment deals with the right to information. It concerns, in particular, the public sector and the Government's intentions in providing such information.
The proposed new subsection refers to section 104 of the Housing Act 1985, which deals with the provision of information about a tenancy. Does that mean that that information will simply be limited to the right to buy, or will it include information about the Government's proposed rents-to-mortgage scheme, which also forms part of the Bill? The relevant section of the 1985 Act


provides that when a tenancy is created, a local authority should give tenants information about changes to the tenancy. I hope that the information provided under the proposed subsection is not just confined to that about right to buy, but includes information about the Government's rents-to-mortgage scheme.
The Government have tried recently to boost the flagging right-to-buy programme by publishing another booklet that, set out that programme in fine detail. I understand that, this year, the Government have already spent £1. 4 million on publicity. The latest publicity stunt will not help council leaseholders who exercised the right to buy but were not properly informed at the time of how they would have to manage and pay the lease. I remind the Minister that some 70,000 council leaseholders in London alone face massive repair bills. They are unable to sell their flats and now feel that they were not properly informed by the Government when they pushed the right-to-buy programme.
Ministers' energies would be better spent tackling the huge need for homes to rent rather than simply trying to create a demand where one virtually does not exist.
It might be helpful if, under the terms of right to information, Ministers gave an undertaking to the House that the relevant costs of providing such information would be fully met and that the provisions would be reviewed if, in the future, authorities could prove that meeting them was more onerous than the Government expected.
Many believe that the rents-to-mortgage scheme is not relevant to current circumstances. In Committee, the Minister often quoted me as saying that the scheme was irrelevant. I cannot claim ownership of that description; it should be claimed by Mr. Steve Wilcox, who wrote in Roof magazine in the September-October 1992 edition that the scheme
will appeal to a limited number of tenants who cannot afford right to buy but are not in receipt of housing benefit.
In other words, the proposals for rents to mortgages, announced in July and based on pilot schemes in Scotland, new town Basildon and Milton Keynes, have not achieved anything near what the Government suggested. There is no real market for the scheme because rents are already at levels where many tenants could, if they so wished, buy under the right-to-buy scheme, with mortgage repayments no higher than their current rents. The scheme is still being sold by the Government, however, as a means of avoiding "future rent increases".
All that the rents-to-mortgage scheme will do is highlight the financial squeeze on local authorities by claiming projected large increases as if they were an inevitable consequence of continued council ownership. It will not spell out the lack of resources to invest in the necessary repair and improvement of local authority stock.
Inside Housing magazine of 30 October 1992 described the scheme in an article entitled, "Rents to mortgage too obscure", which stateds:
Difficulty in understanding rent to mortgage has been one of the main reasons for tenants not taking up the scheme, the Scottish Office has conceded.
That was conceded in the Scottish Office publication, "The Rent to Mortgage Scheme in Scotland". The article continued:

An Official Report into local authority and Scottish Homes rent to mortgage pilots claims success for the scheme … in attracting purchasers who otherwise would not have been able to purchase their homes.
But the report says the main reasons why tenants did not continue with a rent to mortgage purchase after expressing interest included fear of unemployment and difficulty understanding the scheme.
I can understand why people's fear of unemployment makes them unwilling to be pushed any further to purchase property.
Perhaps provocatively—although this is an expression that has been echoed by most people with experience and knowledge in the housing field—I have to say that in 69 per cent. of the housing stock in Britain, owner-occupation is proving untenable. Twenty-one per cent. of the stock is still with local authorities. The private rented sector still stagnates, despite the Government's efforts to revivify it, at 7 per cent. Housing associations, of which the Government demand so much, represent a mere 3 per cent. of the housing stock.
I put it to the Minister that housing associations, with only 3 per cent. of the stock, can go hardly any way towards meeting the needs of people for housing to rent. The Institute of Housing suggests that there need to be 100,000 new dwellings a year provided in Britain. The Government are providing 53,000 dwellings at best—that is just over half, and the figure is projected to go down next year, and down again the following year.
When it comes to providing information, why are the Government obsessed by a single track? Why do they not recognise people's need to rent? The Minister claims to speak of rights. Why could he not recognise the right to rent, and include that in the information to which this clause and the amendment refer?
I suggest, as we did in the Standing Committee on the Bill, that, instead of a rents-to-mortgage scheme, what is most needed in the present context is a scheme that takes people from mortgages to rents. That way perhaps we would not be in the ludicrous position whereby people faced with repossession lose their home and may go into a hostel or other housing accommodation. Then along comes a housing association with a housing market package, buys the property and suggests to the local authority that it can put a homeless person into it.
The difficulty is that people might nor get back into the home which belonged to them and which they built up. Why not leave the family in their home and convert their mortgage into rent? That could be done with a bit of arithmetic, and would make far more sense than the Government's proposals for turning rent into mortgages.
There are great difficulties in understanding the rents-to-mortgage scheme. I will not take the House through them now, but the arithmetic and the exclusion of people on housing benefit—to mention but two points—mean that the scheme is not only little understood but creates real dangers. Private lenders have first charge on the property and, if those low-income owners fall behind on what will then be described as their rent—that is, their mortgage—they will find that the property can be repossessed. That ought to be spelt out plainly in the information to tenants.
I suggest to the Minister that, in the booklets or information passed back to tenants, he should spell out that shared ownership, which the rents-to-mortgage scheme is effectively now to replace, offered tenants a better and a more secure deal.
The Institute of Housing, in its response to the Department of the Environment consultation paper on the rents-to-mortgage scheme said that it was the wrong scheme at the wrong time, that it was ill conceived and inappropriate, and that the eventual take-up would be minimal. We concur with that view and urge the Government, when it gives information to tenants, not to keep pressing its single-tenure obsession. We need flexible tenure in Britain so that people can move within their lifetimes from renting to owning and back to renting, perhaps part-sharing or part-owning. They should not be locked into a form of tenure. Over the past 14 years, by pushing owner-occupation, the Government have developed, not a two-way flow and a flexible tenure, but a one-way street to owner-occupation, which is proving to be a cul-de-sac of repossession for far too many people.
I suggest that, as we set out in our document only last Friday, flexible tenure is what is needed in Britain, not a lock-in to owner-occupation. If the Government were to give tenants fair information on their real rights, they would include the right to rent, set out all the options, and, as it were, open up flexibility of tenures in Britain. They should not continue—as I believe that the Minister does not really want to, because he does occasionally make comments to the effect that we need to develop the rented sector as well—on the present course, in which the system is clogged up and homes are empty while people are homeless.

Sir George Young: I will begin by answering a question that the hon. Gentleman posed at the outset of his speech.
Yes, the amendment will require local authority landlords to reissue annually the information, not just about the right to buy, but about other statutory rights. Local authority tenants already have the right to rent; they are secure tenants, and when they take out a lease from their local authority their rights are set out quite clearly.
The hon. Gentleman touched on two groups of people, the first being leaseholders in high-rise flats, who sometimes find it difficult to sell because the incoming purchaser finds it difficult to get a mortgage.
My hon. Friend and I are continuing to have discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to see whether we can find a way through this problem, which, although not widespread, is a real problem for the people concerned.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful for the Minister's response on that point. It is the response which he gave us some five months ago. I appreciate that he is meeting the Council of Mortgage Lenders, but can he assure me that he is also meeting local authorities, many of whom feel that, at the end of the day, it will be up to them, particularly in tower blocks, to take back the properties and turn people's mortgages into rent, in order to solve that problem?

Sir George Young: The answer is yes, because the local authorities are the freeholders of these blocks of flats and have an interest in any difficulties that may face the leaseholders living in them. Those discussions are continuing.
The bulk of the hon. Gentleman's remarks were about the rent-to-mortgage scheme. Once again, we saw the hon.
Gentleman sitting very firmly on the fence. He does not want to condemn the rent-to-mortgage scheme in case it turns out to be a wild success, like the right-to-buy scheme, but he finds it impossible to endorse it. I find that slightly strange, because only last week the Labour party put out a document entitled "Labour's charter for flexible tenure", and one of the things it says is:
We want to see the end to the old division between rented and owner-occupied housing. There should be circumstances where people can change tenure without having to change their home.
That is exactly what the rent-to-mortgage scheme ensures. I cannot understand why someone who is in favour of flexibility of tenure finds it impossible to endorse the rent-to-mortgage scheme.
The hon. Gentleman knows that we have made no forecasts of the take-up of this scheme. We are in the business of extending choice and opportunity to local authority tenants. It is then up to them to decide whether they want to take the opportunity that we have made available to them under the rent-to-mortgage scheme.
I take it from what the hon. Gentleman says that he has no particular objection to amendment No. 170, which simply requires local authorities to set out annually to tenants their statutory rights, so I hope that the House can now approve the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments 171 to 173 agreed to.

Clause 113

PROVISION OF HOUSING WELFARE SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 174, in page 115, line 44, at end insert—

("(4) The powers conferred by this section shall not be regarded as restricting those conferred by section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (powers to incur expenditure for purposes not authorised by any other enactment) and accordingly the reference to any other enactment in subsection (1)(a) of that section shall not include a reference to this section.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Sir George Young.]

Ms Ann Coffey: The Minister will remember the discussion in Committee about the effect of immediate transfer of the cost of warden services from the housing revenue account to the general fund, and the effect that that might have on the provision of those services.
I want to explore further some of the difficulties of the original clause by reference to the situation in my constituency.
Stockport provides a warden care call service to its tenants which is currently being converted to a speech-based telephone system. That scheme is provided to 1,783 council tenants, of whom 1,341 live in group schemes—special accommodation for the elderly. Wardens monitor and respond to calls and visits. All tenants are visited weekly and 15 per cent. of tenants are visited daily. This year there is a demand for a further 12 schemes for a total of 218 elderly people. The number of elderly people is increasing, and they often live alone—the care call offers them safety and peace of mind. Demand for the care call service is likely to increase.
At present, the cost of warden services is mainly provided through the housing revenue account. There are


differentials in rent multipliers because the accommodation with access to the care call warden system is special accommodation, but the differentials do not fully reflect the cost of the provision. It seems that, from 1 April 1994, the Government intend to transfer from the housing revenue account to the general fund the cost of essential care services managed by the housing wardens. The definition of essential care is assistance with personal care, feeding, dressing and getting up. In Stockport that is unlikely to be a significant cost of the housing wardens service.
What is not clear at present is what, when or whether the Department of the Environment may issue regulations that would effectively lead local authorities to meet the cost of warden and care alarm services, which are not defined as essential care, through a service charge with the rent. The question is whether such a service charge would be eligible for housing benefit.
In general, the charge will qualify for housing benefit only if it is an essential requirement of the accomrnodation. If some degree of choice for tenants is involved, that service charge may not be eligible for housing benefit. If it is not, it will mean that the cost of the warden service will transfer to the general fund because certain tenants, including the elderly and frail, will not be able to afford the service charge. Clearly the authority will have to provide that service. If it cannot do so through the housing revenue account and tenants have no access to housing benefit, the cost will have to be provided through the general fund.
The issue caused me much concern because, as the Minister must realise, social services departments are under extreme pressure to cut their budgets in the forthcoming year. I would be concerned if, either directly or indirectly, the cost of those services was transferred to the general fund. That might well result in the dimunition of the provision of the present service to elderly people at a time when there is a growing elderly population, we are seeking to keep more people in the community and a crucial part of community care is the accommodation that those people are offered.
I appreciate that there is a long-standing argument about what constitutes housing welfare and what degree of responsibility a housing authority has to provide welfare to its tenants. The housing authority is not responsible merely for the maintenance of bricks and mortar—it must take into account the welfare needs of its tenants. Rightly or wrongly, over the years the welfare housing needs of elderly people have been met in countless authorities through care call warden services provided from the housing revenue account. Any sudden shift in responsibility for that provision would have disastrous consequences for the provision of care call and warden services to the elderly.
When he considers the amendment—resulting provisions will be provided through regulations—I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the position of elderly tenants and social services departments. I hope that he will introduce regulations to transfer the cost over a period so that it is affordable for both the housing and the social services departments. He must also ensure that elderly people continue to receive the same level of provision as they have in the past. That provision is crucial for them and in great demand by them.

Sir George Young: I can give the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) the assurance that she sought:

there is no question of there being a sudden shift in responsibility for those services. We are talking about a vulnerable group of people and important services. There will be no turbulence in the continued delivery of those services.
Following the Ealing judgment, there was some doubt about whether local authorities had the powers, through the housing account, to pay for services. Clause 113 validates the status quo and gives local housing authorities the power to provide welfare services for their tenants. The amendment is merely a tidying amendment to ensure that the authorities can go on providing certain services for the private sector.
The Government have been consulting and have received more than 200 representations. We are currently considering the outcome of that exercise. As the hon. Lady implied, the subject is complicated. It is not merely a question of deciding what constitutes a housing service and what constitutes a welfare service; it also involves the knock-on effect on housing benefit.
The Government are not minded to take dramatic action, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Lady. A number of options are available to us. One option would be to wait until local Government responsibilities are reorganised and we move to unitary authorities. We could take that opportunity to clarify the division of responsibilities between housing services and social services.
There should be no disruption to services to tenants. That principle will inspire us as we resolve the matter. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance.

Question put and agreed to.—[ Special entry.]

Clause 116

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 175, in page 116, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 40 and insert

("At the end of subsection (3) of section 27 of the 1985 Act (management agreements), there shall be inserted the words "and shall contain such provisions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".

(1A) For subsection (5) of that section")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Sir George Young.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 182 and 183.

Mr. Straw: These amendments and amendment No. 181 involve compulsory competitive tendering for housing management. Therefore, it may be for the convenience of the House if I address my remarks to both groups of amendments. I hope that the Minister agrees. I congratulate him on his elevation to Her Majesty's Privy Council.
One of the major contentions between the Opposition and the Government when the issue was discussed earlier was the fact that the Government proposed to enforce compulsory competitive tendering for housing management and to remove the tenants' right of veto which they possessed under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985. Under that Act, they had the power to veto a change in the


management of their housing. The matter was considered at great length in Committee, in the House and in their Lordships' House.
With one exception—which is dealt with by Lords amendment No. 181—the Government stuck to their original position. They went through the rigmarole of explaining why a tenant's right of veto was no longer necessary and why, if it was necessary, the tenant's veto would be dealt with through other means. The Government did not offer much clarity over whether they wanted the veto or not.
The Government first claimed—as Lord Strathclyde did in another place—that the veto was unnecessary because there was no proposal to change the landlord's or the tenant's basic rights under compulsory competitive tendering for housing, whereas there would be proposals to do so in the parallel cases involving housing action trusts or large-scale voluntary transfers.
Our view, which I believe was widely shared in the other place, was that, in practice, a competitive tendering process that led to the management of housing responsibilities being transferred to a private company involved at least as substantial a transfer as a large-scale voluntary transfer—which usually results in transferring responsibility for housing management to the same people as before. In a sense, it is in practice a larger transfer than that which is occasioned under a housing action trust, where tenants now have the right to go back to the local authority at the end of the period.
Having dealt with that point, Ministers in another place argued that the veto was unnecessary, as tenants were being given better rights to consultation and involvement. I am always very suspicious of such arguments. I am always suspicious when a categorical right is removed, when one hears weasel words from Ministers—even words as elegant as those that dropped from the lips of the now right hon. Gentleman. Ministers may admit that a specific right is indeed being taken away but say that anyone going through the small print will see that tenants may be consulted. The truth is that tenants will no longer have the clear veto right that they enjoy under the current law. We believe that that right should be continued.
We believe that the determination to remove tenants' veto rights in respect of housing management—rights that are enjoyed in respect of compulsory competitive tendering and large-scale voluntary transfers—springs from the fact that the Government attach much more importance to the privatisation of public services than to the protection of tenants' rights.
In these debates we have tried to flush out the rights to which Ministers give priority. Do the Government regard as more important the right of tenants to a say in the running of their estate or the right of private firms bidding for the management of local authority housing stock? If there is a conflict, does profit come far above the rights of tenants? I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the Minister's own view. Indeed, it is likely that, if he were in control of Government policy, he would have scarcely nothing to do with privatisation and the rest of the now-rotting Thatcherite agenda, to which he is tied. In fact, we saw his attitude when the lady was still in office. As a Minister, however, he has to support pernicious nonsense of this type.
7.30 pm
Lords amendment No. 181 deals with management agreements and compulsory competitive tendering. The Government's concession is that the new clause imports into the Bill the provisions of section 27A of the Housing Act 1985, which previously had been removed altogether. At first glance, this is certainly progress and represents Ministers' recognition of the force of our argument. However, we still have very considerable anxiety about the operation of this provision, and I hope that he will be able to put our minds at rest.
Our first anxiety concerns the breadth of the power being given to the Secretary of State under what will be section 27A(2) of the 1985 Act, which might be described as a Henry VIII provision. Subsection (2) provides:
The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that … the provisions of section 27A shall have effect with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
The Secretary of State is being given power to use subordinate legislation as a means of modifying a provision of an Act. Both Houses of Parliament have always been extremely reluctant to give a Secretary of State power to amend primary legislation by edict unless the circumstances are very clear.
Some hon. Members will remember the debates on the provision that started out as clause 222—but ended up as something different—of the Education Reform Bill of 1988. In that case, the Secretary of State was given power to amend employment legislation very widely by regulation and without further notice to the House. In what respect is it intended that section 27A of the 1985 Act shall be modified? It is important that hon. Members know what is being talked about when they are invited to accede to Lords amendment No. 181.
The second issue concerns the extent of management agreements and the application of section 27A to compulsory competitive tendering. My understanding of the proposed section 27AA is that the tenant's right of veto will operate in respect of management agreements. It seems to me that, where there is a voluntary arrangement for the management of a local authority's housing stock, it will be subject to a tenant's veto. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify something about which I am not clear. If there is a compulsory arrangement, will section 27A apply? In this context, I hope that the Minister will be able to define "management agreement" and say whether such an agreement includes the notion of a service agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that there has been some argument about this matter. My understanding is that Rutland and Brent have sought to evade the more stringent procedural requirements by defining as service agreements those that amount to management agreements. That practice is unacceptable to us, and I hope that it is unacceptable to the Minister. If, under Lords amendment No. 181, tenants are being given a right that some local authorities are able, with malign intent, to evade by means of such redefinition of agreements for the purposes of the veto, that will defeat the object and frustrate Government policy by the back door.
I may want, with the permission of the Chair and the leave of the House, to return to this issue after the Minister's reply.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has raised a number of issues—the tenant's


veto, compulsory competitive tendering for housing management, and some technical matters relating to Lords amendment No. 181. He drew on an article in the 21 May issue of Inside Housing.

Mr. Straw: No.

Sir George Young: That was certainly the source, although the hon. Gentleman did not refer specifically to it.
The tenants' veto was a matter that we spent some time discussing in Committee. I do not thing that this issue has exactly set the country alight since January. Tenants now have a deeper understanding of what the Government plan to do. The veto question concerns the removal by the Bill of the requirement on the Secretary of State to withhold his approval of a housing management delegation if it appears to him that a majority of tenants in the area to which the agreement relates do not want to proceed with it. We must keep in mind the new environment in which housing management agreements are now being sought. Full consultation with tenants will be standard; tenants are increasingly involved, often seeking to manage their own homes. Local authorities are also actively looking for new ways to deliver services and looking to the private sector to help them with that.
All these developments are good for housing management and, above all, for tenants, many of whom enjoy the benefits of improved and more cost-effective services. In addition, there will be housing management compulsory competitive tendering, which is, in effect, being introduced under the Local Government Act 1988. When a local authority intends to keep its housing management in-house, it will have to follow a competitive process.
I was asked what would happen if there were a conflict between tenants' right to manage and CCT. The answer is that if tenants want to take over responsibility for management, that takes precedence. The local authority then does not have to pursue CCT. Tenants can take over responsibility for managing their estate—there is provision for a break clause in any existing agreement—so to that extent, they take precedence over CCT.
The effect of CCT—

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for that undertaking. Under the Bill, tenants have no right of veto over candidates in the competitive process—is that right?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right, but there will be much more tenant involvement and consultation than at present. For instance, tenants will be consulted on specifications and they will be involved in monitoring the contract. We are trying to build a constructive, on-going, meaningful relationship between tenants and local authorities, rather than using the blunt instrument of a veto.
Tenants will have rights to consultation on the terms of management agreements, including those resulting from CCT. Local authorities will have to consult tenants on the standards of service proposed—for example, on the specification for the delegation. The authority has to consider the tenants' representations before it can make any decisions on the terms—that is, before it can invite tenders. Tenants will be involved in monitoring a

contractor's performance, and the Secretary of State can also say in more detail how that consultation should be run.
The Government's case is that this represents an extensive package of rights, which give tenants a good opportunity to influence the management of their homes in a positive and beneficial way. That is more meaningful than giving them a rather blunt choice between yes or no at the end of a process.

Mr. Battle: What the Minister has said seems to give tenants some say after the event. Will they have the right to reject the choice of a managing agent who they are not convinced will properly manage their estate? Will they be involved at that primary stage?

Sir George Young: No; tenants will not be able to impose a veto on the successful candidate after the process has been gone through, but they will have rights to consultation on the terms of an agreement, including those resulting from CCT—and they will be involved in monitoring the contract.
I hope that anyone thinking of putting in a bid for a contract will contact the tenants' representatives and organisations to gain some insight into what they want and to build a constructive relationship with the tenants on an estate. The introduction of a ballot would be clumsy and ineffectual, and would provide no positive value for the quality of housing management. We want authorities to involve tenants in all stages of the process of selecting contractors, as far as practicable.
The Bill provides for tenants to be consulted on drawing up the contract specification and the identity of the contractor, and to be involved in monitoring his performance. It will be open to authorities to involve tenants in helping to choose the successful contractor, subject to the usual requirements of commercial confidentiality, and we shall encourage them to do so. That is as far as I can go to meet the hon. Gentleman's point.
CCT for housing management is about improving the quality of life for people on our council estates. As housing management is exposed increasingly to the disciplines and business practices of the private sector, the fresh wind of competition will blow through estates up and down the land, raising standards and improving value for money.
Of course, it is true that local authority housing management has improved in recent years, but there are still too many estates where management breakdown is evident, with empty properties boarded up for long periods or taken over by squatters, and with common areas displaying numerous signs of neglect—lifts not working, rubbish chutes blocked, vandalism, litter and graffiti.
This grim picture is all too familiar. Tenants are not getting the deal they deserve. We are determined to ensure that the standards in the worst authorities and on the worst estates are raised to those of the best. It can be done. Some local authority services have been subject to CCT for more than 10 years. The improvement in the standard of service delivery has been plain for all to see; so have the savings in costs—6 per cent. across the board. It would be wholly wrong to deny the benefits of competition to housing management—

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister give way?

Sir George Young: Yes, when I get to the end of this moving passage.
The experience of the Conservative-controlled London borough of Wandsworth underlines the point. It has already put its housing management out to competition, and its tenants and council tax payers have reaped the benefits. If one of the best-run and most tightly managed authorities in the country can achieve significant savings, I invite hon. Members to think what others can do.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way after that moving passage. He has shown his commitment to Wandsworth; but will he tell us what representations he and the Department have received from tenants all over the country who have said that they want to retain the ultimate right of veto because, without it, they cannot say no to an unsatisfactory contractor? Why will he not accept that tenants should have that right; why will he not give it to them, to ensure that they have real power instead of this charade of consultation?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman asked Ministers the same question several times in Committee and on Report. He knows the answer perfectly well: we do not think that it would be right for tenants to be able to veto the improvement in standards that we want. There is often a rather cosy relationship between the activists in tenants' associations and the local authority trade unions, and we would not want that to stand in the way of higher standards on estates.

Mr. Battle: Why is there a ballot for tenant management organisations at the initial stage when the Minister is not willing to grant one before a management agency is chosen?

Sir George Young: There is a ballot for TMOs because they have put up their hands to take over the management of estates in the name of all the tenants there. It is therefore legitimate to establish whether they have a mandate, to determine whether the tenants' organisation is truly representative. I have just explained that that does not provide a parallel with giving tenants the veto with which to block the process of housing management CCT.
Lords amendment No. 181 inserts a new clause dealing with consultation on management agreements under CCT. Without it, clause 117 would still apply to delegation under CCT, but there are enough differences between the procedures that an authority would follow when delegating voluntarily and those that it would follow under CCT to merit specific mention of the CCT case. That is what the new clause does. Because of the differences in procedure, some modifications to the consultation arrangements will be necessary.
Clause 117, for example, refers to consultation when an authority proposes to enter into an agreement. However, under CCT, when an authority wants to do the work itself, it will propose to enter into an agreement only and when it has lost a tendering exercise. That would be far too late for consultation on the terms of the agreement, so the new clause will allow the Secretary of State to take the procedure back in time to when the authority is going to invite tenders under the CCT legislation.
The Government's intention is that, where there is CCT, tenants should not lack any of the rights enjoyed by tenants where there is a voluntary delegation. The amendments would enable that to happen. I hope that they are not controversial.

Mr. Straw: Will there be consultation with local authority associations and tenants' representatives about the draft regulations that will bring the legislation into effect?

Sir George Young: Yes. We hope to lay the regulations by April and shall consult on many of the aspects of housing management before we take a decision. We shall consult representatives of tenants and local authorities.
Although the hon. Gentleman did not mention the publication he referred to an article that appeared in a recent edition of Inside Housing about the Bill's tenant consultation provisions. The Government propose that certain aspects of housing management should be defined activities for CCT purposes. Those defined activities will have to be put out to tender if an authority intends to carry out the work itself. Any resulting agreement will be a management agreement and the normal consultation procedures will apply.
CCT will not enable authorities to enter into management agreements without consultation. We do not accept that there is a potential loophole. Where management functions are delegated, a management agreement will arise. Therefore, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's fears that it will be possible to get around the provisions of the legislation.

Mr. Straw: The Minister is something of a Jekyll and Hyde character, and when he speaks to a script he sounds like a combination of Dr. Hastings Banda and Mr. Alan Clark. He treated us to the most extraordinary statement when he said that tenants could not be trusted. It reminds me of the way in which the great Dr. Banda—for the benefit of those who read my remarks rather than listen to them, I should say that I use the word "great" ironically—has managed to resist any semblance of democracy in Malawi for the past 30 years on the ground that, if the peasants had the right to vote, they might exercise it against him and his interests. We had a flavour of that from the Minister.
There was a wonderful elision between the assertion that tenants associations may not be representative, which is true in some cases, and the implicit assertion—with which we were all invited to agree—that, because some tenants associations may not be representative, a secret ballot of all tenants was likely to result in an unrepresentative verdict of what the tenants wanted. That is an extraordinary assertion for a democrat.
That was the Hastings Banda part of the Minister's speech, and before that we heard the Alan Clark part. The Minister has only one attribute in common with Alan Clark. I make it clear that it has nothing whatever to do with the Minister's private life. I almost said the late Mr. Alan Clark, but that hope has not yet materialised for Conservative Members. The Minister and Mr. Clark share the entertaining ability to mock their own speeches when they do not believe a word of them.
The Minister made some cerebral remarks about the right of veto and CCT. He changed to auto-pilot when reading from a passage which he obviously found unconvincing and revolting. He described it as a moving
passage, but he was unmoved. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is seeking to ensure that compulsory competitive tendering is applied in Malawi if Dr. Hastings Banda is still there after today's vote. That would be consistent with the support that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been extending to the puppet regime in Malawi for so long.
The Minister said that CCT was intended to improve the quality of life for tenants and provide a "fresh wind of competition" for them. Tenants can themselves decide whether they want an improvement in their quality of life. If they vote for it, that is fine, because they are the only judges of that. They should have CCT imposed on them if that is their wish, and if about 90 per cent. of them vote for all kinds of other horrors, so be it. The democratic principle is that the majority should decide, and the tenants have a right to decide on their quality of life: decisions should not be imposed by Ministers.
The Minister sped through what he called the moving passage, which contained a reference to empty properties. In the light of the report that I published about four or five weeks ago on empty Government properties, I hope that we shall not have any more dissembling from the Minister on that issue. Some 15 per cent. of the properties for which the Minister and his colleagues are responsible are empty. The Government have 25,000 empty properties and Opposition Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) are doing their damnedest to get some of those empty properties out of the Ministry of Defence and other Ministries, but are running into one blockage after another.
Local authorities, and especially Labour local authorities, have on the whole an excellent record on the management of empty properties. No authority has more than 4 per cent. of its total stock empty for management reasons. That means that the properties are empty and available to let or empty and available to let after minor repairs.
Earlier this year, the Minister spoke on the Walden programme and tried to pretend that Manchester had 5,000 empty properties. I hope that he will apologise to Manchester for the way in which he traduced its record, because it does not have 5,000 empty properties available to let as he sought to imply. Some 5,000 properties on its books do not have tenants, but about 1,500 of those are in the Hulme district and were put up, not least on the suggestion of speculative industrial builders—all of them contributors to Tory funds—in the 1960s. Those properties are uninhabitable. One would not put a pig in them, and if the Minister had bothered to go on a tour of Manchester, he would know that they are being demolished.
Another 1,500 properties in Manchester are in desperate need of major repairs, but they cannot be carried out, thanks to the Government's parsimony—the Governments's refusal to allow authorities to use capital receipts accrued before the end of November 1992. Those properties are empty, not because of inefficiency by Manchester city council but directly because of Government policy. When allowances are made for that, far from having an unacceptable record, Manchester has about 2 per cent. of empty properties, which is about average. That percentage is well below the percentage in Redbridge, which still has a large stock of housing. That is not an authority like Tonbridge and Malting; it is Conservative-controlled.
The record of Labour housing authorities generally is the best in the land. It is far better than that of the private sector or the owner-occupied sector, a little better than that of housing associations and infinitely better than that of central Government.

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend spoke about the so-called woeful reputation of Manchester. Knowsley is constantly trotted out as being among the top 10 worst authorities for vacant properties. The properties that are empty there are mostly being decanted, and they are mostly blocks of flats that are to be handed over to housing associations. The Under-Secretary of State is aware of that, because he visited the area and was told about it. Despite that, the Government still trot out statistics purporting to show that Knowsley is performing badly.

8 pm

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The point that Ministers have made—that mandatory and compulsory competitive tendering should be supported even when the tenants do not want it—is based on the grounds that, somehow, the tenants need to be saved from the record of their local authorities. To support their case, Ministers have said that there are thousands upon thousands of empty properties, which housing authorities—typically, Labour authorities—are failing properly to manage and are leaving empty. The figures tell a different story.
It is something of a compliment to Labour authorities that, to try to damn their records, Ministers have had to fiddle the figures and drag into them not only the properties that are empty and ought to be let, but all those that are empty and uninhabitable, empty and in need of major repair or empty and awaiting transfer to a housing association, housing action trust or large-scale voluntary transfer.
If the Minister responds to this short debate, I hope that he will apologise for the way in which he has traduced the reputation of housing authorities, and that he will instruct Conservative central office—if he has any influence with that strange body—not to put out any more misleading information about the record of Labour housing authorities. I think that Ministers are learning that such statements from Conservative central office have a habit of boomeranging and returning to Conservative authorities. That has been the case on fraud and corruption and on value for money. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was rash enough before the county elections to talk about them being fought on value for money. He got his answer on 6 May. That will also be the case here.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is wrong in what he says about management voids. The figures that I published were for management voids. That left out the properties that are derelict for other reasons. I gave those figures at Question Time a fortnight ago. They represent management voids and were exactly the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked. I have no intention of apologising to Manchester city council. It gave me the figures that I used. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider apologising to Suffolk Coastal and Tunbridge Wells, each of which has transferred nearly the whole of its housing stock but has a handful of voids —two, I think, in one case.
By fiddling the figures, the hon. Gentleman has pretended that Suffolk Coastal was a worse housing authority than Lambeth or Hackney. He confused no one with that mischievous allegation. It is clear from listening to him that he is not concerned with improving standards for tenants. He is much more interested in protecting trade union monopolies. I hope that the House will agree to all the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 176 to 180 agreed to.

New clause

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS AND COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING

Lords amendment: No. 181, after clause 117 insert the following new clause—

(". After section 27A of the 1985 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

"Management agreements and compulsory competitive tendering

27AA.—(1) This section shall apply if the Secretary of State makes an order under section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1988 ('the 1988 Act') providing for the exercise of any management functions to be a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act (compulsory competitive tendering).

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that in any case where—

(a) a local housing authority propose to make an invitation to carry out any functional work in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (4) of section 7 of the 1988 Act (functional work: conditions), and
(b) the proposal is such that any decision by the authority that the work should be carried out by the person or one of the persons proposed to be invited would necessarily involve their entering into a management agreement with that person,

the provisions of section 27A shall have effect with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

(3) Nothing in section 6 of the 1988 Act (functional work: restrictions) shall apply in relation to any functional work which, in pursuance of a management agreement, is carried out by the manager as agent of the local housing authority.

(4) In this section 'functional work' has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1988 Act.

(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."")

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 109.

Division No. 296]
[8.03 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Jonathan
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alexander, Richard
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Booth, Hartley


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bowis, John


Baldry. Tony
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brandreth, Gyles


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brazier, Julian


Bates, Michael
Bright, Graham


Bellingham, Henry
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter





Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hendry, Charles


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Burns, Simon
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Butcher, John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Butler, Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Sir Ralph (North


Carrington, Matthew
Norfolk)


Carttiss, Michael
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cash, William
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunter, Andrew


Clappison, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Coe, Sebastian
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Congdon, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Conway, Derek
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Key, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knox, Sir David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Day, Stephen
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Legg, Barry


Devlin, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dorrell, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lidington, David


Dover, Den
Lightbown, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lord, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Luff, Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maclean, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evennett, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Faber, David
Madel, David


Fabricant, Michael
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fishburn, Dudley
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Malone, Gerald


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Marland, Paul


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers


Gill, Christopher
Milligan, Stephen


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gorst, John
Moate, Sir Roger


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nelson, Anthony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hanley, Jeremy
Norris, Steve


Hannam, Sir John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hargreaves, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Harris, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Paice, James


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayes, Jerry
Pawsey, James


Heald, Oliver
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth






Pickles, Eric
Streeter, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sumberg, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Sweeney, Walter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Sykes, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Redwood, John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Richards, Rod
Thomason, Roy


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Robathan, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Ray


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Soames, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Willetts, David


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Spink, Dr Robert
Wood, Timothy


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sproat, Iain
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)



Stephen, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Stewart, Allan
Mr. Irvine Patnick.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Ainger, Nick
Grocott, Bruce


Alton, David
Gunnell, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Hall, Mike


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hanson, David


Barnes, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Battle, John
Hinchliffe, David


Bayley, Hugh
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Hutton, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Illsley, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Betts, Clive
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Boyce, Jimmy
Jamieson, David


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jowell, Tessa


Clapham, Michael
Kirkwood, Archy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terry


Coffey, Ann
Llwyd, Elfyn


Corbett, Robin
Lynne, Ms Liz


Corston, Ms Jean
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McFall, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Mahon, Alice


Davidson, Ian
Mandelson, Peter


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
Meale, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Enright, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Etherington, Bill
Mullin, Chris


Faulds, Andrew
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Fraser, John
O'Hara, Edward


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godsiff, Roger
Patchett, Terry





Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter L.
Tyler, Paul


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, John
Wareing, Robert N


Primarolo, Dawn
Watson, Mike


Raynsford, Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Rendel, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Short, Clare
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Gordon McMaster and


Spellar, John
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Straw, Jack

Question accordingly agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 182 to 188 agreed to, some with special entry.

New clause

CALCULATION OF HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT SUBSIDY

Lords amendment: No. 189, after clause 125 insert the following new clause—

(". In subsection (1) of section 80 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (determination of formulae for calculating Housing Revenue Account subsidy), the words 'and for any year the first such determination shall be made before the 25th December immediately preceding that year' shall cease to have effect.")

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Sir George Young.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendments Nos. 217, 278 and 283.

Mr. Pike: Can the Minister explain why the change involving the date of 25 December has been made? Is it connected with the change in Budget arrangements, under which tax and benefit provisions will both be announced in November, or is it because the Government have rarely achieved the 25 December target and are therefore regularising the position?
As I am sure the Minister will recognise, given all the implications for local authorities, it is essential that we dispense with a system that is increasingly causing all local authorities considerable difficulties, regardless of which party is in control. Many key decisions affect their budgets when they are compelled to comply with legislation according to a rigid timetable. Many of the key factors affected by Government decisions are announced increasingly late, which makes it increasingly difficult for councils to meet their statutory requirements.

Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman implied, the amendments are indeed about the arrangements for the unified Budget. The background to the amendments was the announcement in last year's Budget speech that the Government have decided to change the annual Budget timetable so that tax and spending proposals can in future be presented to Parliament at the same time in the form of a unified Budget. The Government are planning on the basis that the date of the unified Budget this year will be no later than the last week of November.
We are required by legislation to consult representatives of local government on the proposed subsidy determinations before they are issued in final form, but we


generally have to await the Chancellor's unified Budget announcement of Government spending plans before doing. so. In such circumstances, there will be insufficient time after the unified Budget announcement to allow authorities a reasonable period in which to comment on the draft determinations and for my right hon. Friend to consider those comments and then issue the determinations in their final form before the 25 December deadline. Hence the need for the amendment.
In response to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I can say that every effort will be made to issue the subsidy determinations as soon as possible after Christmas. The Department has stated its intention to do so by 10 January. That has been made possible by the helpful suggestion of local government representatives, which the Government have accepted, to shorten the consultation period on the draft determinations so that it can end before Christmas.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 190 to 283 agreed to, some with special entry.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 6: Mr. John Battle, Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, Mr. Jack Straw, Sir George Young; Three to be the quorum; to withdraw immediately.—[ Mr. Baldry.]

Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Representation of the People Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I shall explain the background briefly. Members of the Ulster Defence Regiment—the UDR—were regarded as part of the reserve and auxiliary forces and registered as civilian electors. Following the merger of the UDR and the Royal Irish Rangers to form the Royal Irish Regiment, the home service component of the regiment became part of the Regular Army. As members of the regular forces, the Representation of the People Act 1983 confers on those who now enlist as full-time home service personnel a service qualification; hence, they may register only as service voters. It is illegal for them to register as civilian voters.
As for part-time members of the home service battalions, it is possible to argue that their liability for call-out renders them part of a reserve and auxiliary force and therefore exempt from the provisions for service voting. All personnel serving our existing UDR engagements may continue to register as civilian voters.
Our concern is that, under the electoral system in Northern Ireland, canvassers who are not security cleared distribute and collect registration forms from households. Home service personnel who had enlisted since the merger would have to tell the canvassers that they were no longer eligible for registration on the standard civilian voter registration form and that, coupled with the eventual appearance of their names on the completed register, could lead to their identification as home service personnel.
I in no way wish to cast doubt on the integrity of canvassers, who do a very difficult job very well, but it is possible to conceive of a risk, and it is only prudent to take measures to remove it. After study, we concluded that it would best be done by amending the Representation of the People Act 1983.
A secondary consideration is that the service voter arrangements are meant to assist service personnel serving overseas and home service personnel serve only in Northern Ireland, except during some limited periods of training. The Bill provides for amendment to the definition of who constitutes a member of the armed forces in section 59(1) of the 1983 Act. Because of the exclusion of home service personnel from the definition, they will be able to continue to register as civilian voters. The reference to a member of the Regular Army means that officers and soldiers are included and the amendment extends to full and part-time home service personnel, thus removing any doubt about the position in law of part-timers.
In order that the changes may be put into effect before the annual registration round, which begins in August, we seek commencement on Royal Assent. I therefore commend this short Bill to the House.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. I understand that he was under fire on Friday and I look forward to doing battle with him, probably on Thursday, about Britain's defence policy—but not tonight.
It is not late at night, so we can spend a long time debating the Bill. Nevertheless, the issue is not contentious, and I therefore do not intend to delay the House. The Bill is one of those commonsense measures that should be dealt with administratively. I understand that the Government investigated that possibility but found that it was not possible. The necessary adjustments must, therefore, be put before the House. I understand that there is some urgency and that the Bill must be given Royal Assent by August, otherwise we will not be able to complete the necessary adjustments to the electoral register in Northern Ireland. The fact that the Bill must be rushed through shows that perhaps there was an oversight on the part of the Government.
I said earlier that the Bill is a common-sense measure, but it reflects the level of terrorism and violence on the Northern Irish scene in the past 25 years. It surely cannot be acceptable that soldiers serving their country must hide their occupation to avoid assassination, but that is the sad reality. In the 22-year history of the Ulster Defence Regiment, 244 soldiers or former soldiers were murdered by terrorists. Most of them were murdered off duty, and some of them in front of their families. Let us not forget that the Bill is necessary because of the failure of politicians on both sides of the House and on both sides of the Irish sea to deal with the problem of terrorism.
The Labour party supports the Bill and hopes that it passes all its stages tonight, but we look forward to the time when we can ask for its repeal and when there is peace in Ulster.

Sir James Kilfedder: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in his new capacity of Minister of State for the Armed Forces. It is a matter of regret that he has left the Northern Ireland Office, where he served the people of Northern Ireland well. We wish to congratulate him and hope that he will have further success in his new capacity.
The Royal Irish Regiment, the successor to the Ulster Defence Regiment, and its members face death daily and nightly and everything must be done to protect them from further hazard, which is why the Bill is welcome and should progress speedily.
As the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said, the Ulster Defence Regiment has suffered great losses. Many of its members have been slaughtered by the IRA. That is what the people of Northern Ireland face. We must give every protection to those who serve the people of
Northern Ireland. Members of the Royal Irish Regiment show great courage in carrying out their job, which is why I give the Bill my full support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole I-louse. —[Mr. Wood.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Hanley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) for his kind remarks and for his co-operation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) for his kind remarks and, on behalf of those who are served by the Bill, I thank the House for its co-operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

FATS (MARKETING STANDARDS)

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10344/91 and 5019/93, relating to marketing standards for fats; and supports the Government's intention to seek amendments to the amended proposal in line with the conclusions on subsidiarity and proportionality already agreed by the Community.—[Mr. Wood.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

HYDROCARBONS (EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION)

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4180/93, relating to licensing of exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons; and welcomes the Government's attempts to secure transparent, fully competitive and non-discriminatory access to hydrocarbon resources throughout the European Community through the adoption of the amended draft Directive.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Human Rights (Tibet)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Wood.]

Mr. David Alton: It is an unusually early hour for the House to adjourn, but I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising the issue of human rights abuse in Tibet. I am grateful to the Minister for being present and I know that one of his colleagues hopes to attend the debate and to speak.
I know that the Minister shares the concern of myself and others about the appalling catalogue of torture, imprisonment and killings that have marked China's control of Tibet.
The plight of Tibet has been highlighted in the past few months by the Dalai Lama's visit to Britain and to this place, when many Members of Parliament had the opportunity to meet him, and by the brutal Chinese reaction to the demonstrations that coincided with the European Community mission's visit to Tibet.
I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the lead that the Dalai Lama has given his people. I welcome the Government's recent stance that the main avenue for a peaceful resolution of the problems in Tibet are talks without preconditions between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities.
I hope that the Minister will join me condemning the attempt over the weekend to exclude the Dalai Lama from the world conference on human rights in Vienna. Could the Minister confirm that the call for exclusion came from the Chinese Government? It is an important point that the Dalai Lama was not permitted to take part in that conference, and it would be useful if the Minister could confirm who called for the Dalai Lama's exclusion.
In the light of pressure from some of the world's most tyrannical and brutal regimes to destroy the universality of human rights, could the Minister give the House an unequivocal commitment that the Government will continue to regard all human rights from the universal declaration of human rights as applying to all? Clearly, with the many abuses of human rights throughout the world, it is sometimes easy to be overcome by the sheer scale of problems, whether they are in Somalia, the Sudan or Bosnia. The fact that Tibet is a faraway place to which we have limited access, and that the world's media cannot highlight events there in the same way as they do atrocities that take place elsewhere, is not a reason for us to treat it as out of sight and out of mind.
The Dalai Lama in particular is to be congratulated on his unswerving advocacy of non-violent opposition to Chinese violence, for which he has been honoured by being awarded the Nobel peace prize. My immediate concern is that, following recent events in Lhasa, that strategy is at risk.
The Minister will be aware of the arbitrary arrests, detention without trial and tear-gassing of demonstrators that occurred before and during the visits of 16 to 23 May. He will also be aware of the wholly inadequate response given to the European Community delegation by the Chinese authorities. I want to emphasise in particular, the case of two prisoners whose welfare may well affect the future of Tibet. One is Gendon Rinchen and the other is

Lobsang Yonten. They are both being held at an unspecified location, accused of stealing a large amount of state secrets.
Both men were involved in monitoring human rights violations, and may have been engaged in compiling a list of prisoners of conscience to present to the European Community delegation. The most sinister aspect of their case is that they are being held in secret. In the past, those held in that way have been subject to the most brutal torture, and these two men are now clearly in extreme danger. Therefore, it is particularly appropriate that their case should be raised tonight—not least because the European Community delegation had expected to receive information from those two men about human rights abuses.
I would also refer the Minister to the case of a 26-year-old woman, Sonam Dalar, who was tortured over six months at a detention centre in Lhasa in 1990–91. She escaped in 1991 and was able to reveal what the Chinese do to those merely suspected of political dissent. Sonam Dalar was kept naked and incommunicado in a bare underground cell. She was regularly tortured with electric batons, and was beaten and electrocuted until she lost consciousness. After six months, she was vomiting and urinating blood daily. I could mention many other similar cases were the time available. Suffice it to say, however, that among the list of detainees maltreated in Chinese prisons in Tibet for political dissent are a boy of 14 and a girl of 12.
Gendon Rinchen and Lobsang Yonten are well known in Tibet. Their cases are being widely watched and followed closely. I share the concern of groups such as the Tibet Support Group that, if the world cannot apply enough pressure on the Chinese to ensure at least the basic minimum of civilised detention, such as visits from families and details of locations at which prisoners are being held, Tibetans will reconsider their non-violent strategy on the basis that international pressure can have no effect on Communist China's attitudes to Tibet. I ask the Minister to confirm tonight that he will approach the Chinese authorities, both with a view to gaining access for British officials to visit both men and with a view to highlighting those cases.
I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to nine arrests that took place on 4 and 6 June. The latest reported protest incident in Lhasa took place on Sunday 6 June, when three monks wearing civilian clothes were arrested shortly before 2 pm in the south-east corner of Barkor, the pilgrimage route that surrounds Lhasa's main temple. The monks, whose names are not known, were shouting slogans and carrying a white banner, and—according to foreign tourists in the city who were contacted by the Tibetan independence movement—were apparently calling for independence.
A similar incident took place at about midday on Friday 4 June, when six men were arrrested a few minutes after they appeared in the Barkor square carrying Tibetan flags. One report said that the men—described by one foreign witness as about 18 years old—were in three separate groups around the square for the few minutes during which the incident lasted. The tourists, contacted by telephone in Lhasa, claimed that the men had been beaten with sticks during the 4 June arrests. According to one tourist, between 15 and 20 police in riot gear were on duty in the square during the day, which marked an important Buddhist festival. A large number of


plain-clothes police were also evident on 4 June, together with security officials who, according to the report, were using "sophisticated equipment".
Individual cases such as those that I have cited tonight emphasise the wider degradation of Tibet at the hands of the Chinese—the mass population transfers of Han Chinese into Tibet and the destruction of Tibetan culture, the environmental rape of Tibet to supply Chinese factories with raw materials and the abuse of aid to Tibet, such as that provided by the World Food Programme, whose aid is administered by Chinese officials to produce food for the Chinese by methods inappropriate to Tibetan culture. That litany describes what has been happening to that small faraway country.
Let me also draw the Minister's attention to the mass abuse of Tibetan women who, along with Chinese women, are being forcibly sterilised and aborted, under laws that clearly breach the right to found a family freely. Accounts of infanticide, mass enforced late abortion and compulsory sterilisation are horrific enough. I was even more surprised to discover that, since its inception, the Chinese population control programme has been financially fuelled by the International Planned Parenthood Federation and by the United Nations Family Planning Association, and that, over the last 10 years for which figures are available, Britain contributed £104 million to that cause by funding those two organisations.
In other words, the British taxpayer contributes £7 million to £9 million a year to programmes administered by UNFPA and IPPF which have been used by Chinese population programmes forcibly to fit IUDs and to sterilise and abort women who do not comply with population targets.
In Tibet in particular, that has been used deliberately to distort the population balance. When he was here recently, the Dalai Lama highlighted that very case elsewhere in the Palace. Indeed, in the declaration that was issued by European parliamentarians who gathered here in Westminster, that was one of the things that were highlighted as running totally contrary to any system of human rights—a fact that we were urged to impress upon the Chinese Government. That is a matter about which we can do something.
I am aware of the persistent denials of forced abortion and sterilisation from the Chinese Government—denials that have been regularly supported by the IPPF and UNFPA. Those denials have about as much validity as the assertion that torture is illegal in China and Tibet and is therefore merely an aberration when it occurs.
It is a scandal that British taxpayers' money is being used by the UNFPA to manufacture IUDs which will be forcibly inserted by law into Chinese and Tibetan women. It is also a scandal that the IPPF, funded by the British Government, passes money to the Chinese family planning association, which works hand in glove with that oppressive Government.
It is absurd to talk about the family planning association in China as though it resembled a British voluntary organisation. Surely we know enough about the Chinese Government following the massacres in Tiananmen square and the recent brutal killing of a Catholic bishop—in which I know the Minister has taken a personal interest—and about the way in which ordinary people in China, especially those who try to express their religious beliefs and to worship as they would wish, have been repressed, to know that it is not possible for a

voluntary organisation along the lines of those that exist in the United Kingdom to flourish in China. To be pumping money into those organisations knowing that they are simply groups that work as an adjunct of Government is extraordinarily naive, to put it at its best.
I have raised these matters with Dr. Halfdan Mahler of the IPPF, without receiving the courtesy of a reply. I have sponsored an early-day motion supported by many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are equally appalled by the abuse of human rights. I have raised it in person with the Minister for Overseas Aid. I welcome her determination to oppose and end any oppressive population control. She has been extremely helpful and interested in this matter, and I was very satisfied with the reply that both she and her officials gave me when I went to see her about the matter some months ago.
The Minister will understand that this is an issue to which I intend to continue to return. The more evidence that becomes available, the more I think that the British Government should follow the example of the previous American Administration under George Bush, who withdrew funding from those very programmes because they were convinced of the authenticity of the claims that were being made about the abuses.
Do the British Government intend to continue to fund supporters of that barbaric policy? What evidence, if any, does the Minister have of a Chinese change of heart on population control? Does he have any information about any Chinese official who has been charged, tried or imprisoned for abusing the human rights of women in that way?
It is in the nature of foreign affairs that commentators continually question the motivation of foreign policy. Is policy founded on principle or pragmatism? Do trade concerns and export policy, rather than suffering and need, dictate our overseas aid policy? Does the situation in Hong Kong dictate our response to Tibet?
There is also a recent allegation, which I am sure the Minister will take this opportunity to refute, that because the Conservative party has received donations from prominent Chinese communists, that in some way affects the Government's policy towards China. I know that the Minister is totally honourable and I would be grateful if he would place on record the fact that that kind of funding has nothing whatsoever to do with the way in which British Government policy is made.
Tibet is an issue on which the Government can and should display their moral resolve. The Prime Minister is on record as proclaiming that overseas aid is tied to human rights performance. We provide aid to China and Tibet by numerous national and international avenues. Has the Foreign Office pointed out to Chinese officials that aid can be withdrawn if there are not tangible improvements in their human rights record?
Representations have been made to the Chinese on human rights in Tibet since that country was invaded. What success can the Minister claim for his current policy? What benchmarks and targets does he set himself when considering China's abuse of human rights? I suggest that greater determination in pursuing that cause would yield results. For example, I applauded the visit of the delegation led by Lord Howe to China last year to discuss human rights.
I was delighted with the wide consultation that preceded the visit with non-governmental organisations working to improve human rights in that country. We


were told that the delegation would hopefully be followed by a similar visit to Tibet. More than eight months after the visit, the delegation's report has still not been published, there has been no report back to NGOs, and all talk of a visit to Tibet has ceased. Can the Minister give assurances tonight that those matters will be speedily resolved?
Mere representations to the Government who perpetrated the Tiananmen square massacre are not enough. The Chinese must be shown that we mean business and that their aid will be threatened if there are not substantial improvements in the way they treat the people under their control in China and Tibet.
I hope that this Government will have the moral courage to make that commitment on behalf of the terrorised, the tortured and the imprisoned in one of the last communist tyrannies in the world. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in this Adjournment debate.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is well known and widely respected in this House and outside for his interest in Tibet and in human rights issues generally. I am indebted to him for bringing these important matters to the attention of the House.
May I begin by assuring the hon. Gentleman once again that human rights, particularly in Tibet, are of deep concern to the Government and are a central element in our dialogue with the Chinese authorities. The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the concern felt by the British public and by the House about the situation in Tibet and especially about the recent events there. He raised the cases of Gendon Rinchen and Lobsang Yonten, and I undertake to follow up what he said and look into the background extremely carefully.
Many hon. Members will have met His Holiness the Dalai Lama during his visit to this country last month, or at least will have heard him speak in the meetings held in the Grand Committee Room on 4 May. As all hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a private meeting with the Dalai Lama on 12 May, during which a number of issues, including human rights issues in Tibet and elsewhere in China, and the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman tonight, were discussed.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary assured the Dalai Lama that we would continue to pursue our dialogue on human rights with the Chinese authorities at every opportunity, and he emphasised that we would continue to urge the Chinese authorities to enter a genuine dialogue, without preconditions, with the Tibetans, including with the Dalai Lama, and so we will.
The hon. Gentleman alluded to the recent visit to Tibet by a group of European Community ambassadors in Peking and senior diplomats based there. That important mission took place on the initiative of the EC embassies. It was arranged with assistance from the Foreign Affairs Office in Lhasa, in consultation with the EC presidency.
An extensive week's programme was organised, including meetings with Vice-Governor Thondrup, in the

absence of the Governor who was recovering from illness in Chengdu, and representatives of the Commissions for Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, Planning, Development, Health, Education and Nationalities and Religious Affairs. In addition, a meeting was arranged with the Supreme People's Court and the Public Security and Justice Departments.
The Drapchi prison in Lhasa, and the town of Shigatse, were also visited. During the meeting on 17 May with the Vice-Governor, a list of political prisoners, prepared thanks to assistance from Amnesty International and other NGOs, was handed over and information about them was requested. Members of the group asked a number of penetrating questions, and quite rightly so.
During his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 12 May, the Dalai Lama also raised the question of population transfer of Han Chinese into Tibet. It is difficult, if not impossible, to confirm the accuracy of reports on the numbers of Han Chinese moving into Tibet. Different sources provide different figures and often refer to different geographical areas. In our view, it is important to distinguish between the Tibet autonomous region and what some Tibetans claim as Greater Tibet, embracing large parts of neighbouring Chinese provinces.
We are concerned by all reports of threats to the Tibetans' ethnic and cultural identity, and we will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to respect and protect traditional Tibetan values, culture and way of life. We have also drawn the attention of our European Community partners to those issues, so they can pursue them at the European level as well as bilaterally.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the recent reports of rioting in Lhasa and of the police action against demonstrators there. I understand that some tension remains. We are watching developments closely. In consultation with our European Community partners, we will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to conform to international standards of behaviour.
I began by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that human rights in Tibet and elsewhere in China are a central element in our bilateral and wider European Community relations with the Chinese authorities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of abuses of human rights. There are many other examples, in addition to those which he mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about enforced abortion and the funding programme provided by the international agencies which are assisting the Chinese authorities in that population control programme. We are also aware of, and deeply concerned about, reports of enforced abortion in China. The British Government are opposed to any population activities in which there is any element of coercion of individuals to practice family planning or to accept any particular type of contraception, and so too—the hon. Gentleman acknowledged this—are the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.
Indeed, at the UNFPA governing council in New York on 2 June, Dr. Nafis Sadik, the UNFPA executive director, once more categorically stated that the UNFPA condemns coercion of population programmes. She emphasised:
Coercion has no part in population and family planning, it is morally wrong and ultimately it will not be effective. This has always been UNFPA's position and it will never change.


At the governing council, the Chinese Government reiterated that they have been consistently opposed to coercive practice in whatever form while implementing their family planning policy. The British Government, the IPPF and the UNFPA do not advocate or condone induced abortion as a method of family planning. The IPPF and the UNFPA do not provide support for abortions or abortion-related activities in Tibet or elsewhere in China.
The IPPF and the UNFPA are the leading international agencies in population activities, and are important channels for the United Kingdom's population assistance. They are committed to supporting programmes which enable men and women to choose whether to have children and provide them with information and services to enable them to do so.
We believe that our most effective strategy in seeking to minimise abuses of reproductive rights in China and bring about a change in that country's population policy is to work through those two agencies. Their involvement in China has ensured that country's exposure to international values and practices which would not otherwise have occurred and is helping to promote a more humane population policy. The technical assistance they provide is essential if China is further to improve the health and welfare of its women and children.

Mr. Alton: The Minister will recall that I pointed out that the previous American Administration withdrew funding from the UNFPA and the IPPF because they had sufficient evidence of forced abortions, forced sterilisation and the forced fitting of inter-uterine devices.
Has he taken any steps to try to obtain the reports which the American Administration acted upon before arriving at that decision under the presidency of George Bush? If such information were to come to the right hon. Gentleman—I have heard first-hand accounts of women who had been able to leave Tibet and China and have been forcibly aborted—would he then abandon funding of those programmes?

Mr. Goodlad: I will inquire, because I do not know offhand whether the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers were taken into account by the Overseas Development Administration when it renewed the subscription of those organisations. I will find out whether that is the case and communicate with the hon. Gentleman. I will also make sure that the evidence that he has brought to the attention of the House and his bilateral discussions with Lady Chalker are taken into account in the future formulation of policy. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing those matters to the attention of the House.
We believe that the involvement of the agencies in China has ensured that country's exposure to international values and practices that would not otherwise have been brought to bear on what happens there, and that they are helping to promote a more humane population policy. The technical assistance that they provide is essential if China is further to improve the health and welfare of its women and children.
As the world's most populous nation, China must obviously be a priority country, both for the IPPF and the UNFPA. Both agencies are making a significant contribution to changing attitudes in China.
The ODA is in regular contact with the IPPF and the UNFPA about their activities in China, and of course it will continue to impress upon them the need for careful monitoring of China' population programme and the promotion of greater freedom of reproductive choice.
As I said, I will ensure that everything that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House tonight is taken into account in future decisions. I can give an assurance that none of the extraneous factors that he mentioned has affected the way in which the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been geared to do that—he was gracious enough to anticipate that that is what I would say.

Mr. Alton: I ask the Minister to respond to my question about the Vienna conference, which is currently under way. At present, 180 Governments are discussing the question of the universality of human rights. Is that principle being resisted by the Chinese Government? Is it true that attempts were made to exclude the Dalai Lama from the conference? Is it the case that officials of Her Majesty's Government resisted those attempts?

Mr. Goodlad: I shall come to that point in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of Lord Howe's mission to China. We are awaiting the details of his formal report on his visit to China with interest. I understand that it is nearly finalised. Copies will be made available in the Library of the House and more generally to the public in due course.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the second world conference on human rights that is taking place in Vienna from 14 to 25 June. The United Kingdom, together with our European Community partners, has played an active role in the preparatory process and will be active at the conference. As the House may know, the world conference will be addressing overall thematic rather than country-specific issues.
The House will be aware of events over the weekend, when steps were taken to restrict participation at the conference. We and our European Community partners profoundly regret that steps were taken to prevent the Dalai Lama from attending the opening ceremony, while welcoming the invitation to him from the chairman of the governmental conference to attend the remainder of the conference. We understand that he will be participating in the NGO conference being held in parallel, which will be discussing thematic rather than country-specific issues.
We hope that both conferences will examine methods of improving the implementation of human rights instruments and seek ways to improve United Nations mechanisms in the protection and promotion of human rights. As the House will understand, the overall aim is that all participating countries will benefit from an exchange of views on their respective practices and provisions in this area.
The specific rights and freedoms codified in the universal declaration of human rights and the two international covenants transcend national, religious, cultural and ideological frontiers. We believe that those specific rights and freedoms are equally applicable to all persons in all circumstances. Whatever some people may think, human rights are no longer, and will never again be, exempt from external pressure on grounds of state sovereignty. The United Nations Security Council endorses that by recognising that gross violations may


endanger international peace and security. United Nations peacekeeping efforts now incorporate human rights verification.
Human rights issues in Tibet are frequently associated with aspirations for independence. As I told the hon. Gentleman and the House, we regularly speak to the Chinese about the need for better protection of human rights in Tibet and more autonomy there. But the fact is that Tibet has never been an internationally recognised independent country. We have consistently encouraged the Chinese to enter into a dialogue with Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without preconditions. We will continue to do so, because we believe that that is the most promising, indeed the only promising, way forward.
The Chinese can be and are in no doubt about the strength of feeling of Her Majesty's Government, of this House and, more widely, this country about their behaviour in Tibet. There have been changes in the Chinese economy in recent years. We welcome that, and China's so-called open door policy. It is our hope, and that of our Community partners, that, as standards of economic prosperity rise, so will standards of democratic accountability.
The House recognises, because it has heard it before, that the Chinese view is that human rights are not universal, but vary with each society's specific historical conditions. China is one of those developing countries that is trying to introduce that definition of human rights into the final statement of the world conference in Vienna. The Chinese place emphasis on rights to shelter, clothing and nutrition, in contrast to the wider view of human rights which the House and the hon. Member for Mossley Hill have quite rightly put forward.
We and our Community partners are holding firm, and I hope, doing our bit to help human rights in China by, for example, training Chinese lawyers, accountants and administrators—some of the essential human resources that, in practical terms, will make good government and the reality of an extension of human rights practicable and possible.
We hope that the Chinese authorities will agree to talk to the Dalai Lama without preconditions. For his part, he emphasised during his recent visit to this country his readiness to enter such negotiations, and hinted at a compromise based upon the one country, two systems, formula.
We will continue to urge those concerned to enter into real dialogue and to encourage the Chinese to allow ethnic Tibetans a greater and proper say in running their own affairs. We will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to adhere to international standards of behaviour, to abide by their obligations under the United Nation's charter and to respect the values enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights.
I reiterate my gratitude and that of the House to the hon. Gentleman for raising the specific matters that have been put before the House. I also reiterate my undertaking to follow up those specific points.

Mr. Alton: I thank the Minister for the thorough way in which he dealt with the debate, and the assurances that he has given.
We will all be concerned to know of the Chinese Government's wish to see the universality of human rights destroyed and replaced by other criteria. The fact that that idea comes from a regime that has been notorious for its brutality and tyrannical methods must surely be something that we and other Community countries must resist.
The violation of women in Tibet and China is an issue that all hon. Members will want to come back to again and again. We will continue to monitor it. It is a scandal that the IPPF and the UNFPA are funding the construction of factories in China for the manufacture of IUDs, which will be forcibly inserted into Chinese and Tibetan women.
We can only imagine the misery and the pain that is caused to women who try to remove those devices, which have been placed within them to control their fertility. We can only imagine the sheer loneliness and desperation that many women must experience after they have been forcibly sterilised or forcibly aborted. It is to the eternal shame of western Governments that the money that funds those operations comes from our taxpayers.
I commend to the Minister a book by Mary Craig which was published recently and which highlights the fate of the Tibetan people.
I only hope that it will not be long before the Minister, after he has had a chance to ponder these questions, will come to the House of Commons to announce the end of funding for such barbaric and wholly unacceptable practices.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Nine o'clock.